Article

2022, Vol. 51(8) 1 264­–1294

! The Author(s) 2020
Investigation of the Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
impact and post-impact DOI: 10.1177/1528083719900670
journals.sagepub.com/home/jit
behaviour of glass and
glass/natural fibre hybrid
composites made with
various stacking
sequences: Experimental
and theoretical analysis

Erdem Selver1 , Hussein Dalfi2 and

Zeshan Yousaf3

Abstract
In the present work, impact and post-impact response of thermoset composite lami-
nates manufactured from glass, flax, jute fabrics and their hybrid combinations (glass/
jute and glass/flax) made with various stacking sequences was studied. The low-velocity
impact response of these laminates was investigated by drop-weight impact tests at
different energy levels (20–50 J). Additionally, their post-impact behaviour was studied
by compression after impact tests, measuring their residual compressive strength.
Impact test results showed that glass composites had higher impact resistance than
natural and hybrid composites. Moreover, the hybrid composites with glass fabric layers
in the exterior resulted in better impact resistance compared to composites where
glass fabric layers were placed in the interior with flax or jute fabrics. It was also
observed that natural and hybrid composites absorbed more energy than that of
glass composites between 20 and 40 J. Glass composites exhibited higher compression

1
Department of Textile Engineering, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü _Imam University, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Wasit University, Wasit, Iraq
3
School of Materials, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Corresponding author:
Erdem Selver, Department of Textile Engineering, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü _Imam University, Kahramanmaraş
46100, Turkey.
Email: eselver@ksu.edu.tr
2Selver et al. Journal of Industrial Textiles1265
0(0)

and compression after impact strength than natural and hybrid composites. However,
hybrid composites had higher compression after impact strength retention (%) than
glass composites due to less fibre damages. The numerical analysis was also conducted
to simulate the intra-laminar damages and delamination failures. Good agreement was
observed between numerical and experimental results.

Keywords
Impact damage tolerance, compression after impact, natural fibres, hybrid composites,
numerical modelling

Introduction
In recent years, composite materials have increasingly been employed in aerospace,
civil and subsea applications due to their novel properties such as high specific
strength and stiffness compared to metals and alloys. However, the use of com-
posite materials in many critical applications has been limited due to their failure
under accidental impact at low velocities [1]. Therefore, the damage tolerance has
become an important parameter for designing composite laminates. Although syn-
thetic fibres (i.e. glass and carbon fibres) reinforced composite materials have been
widely used for structural applications due to the weight reduction made possible
by their high specific mechanical properties. However, they are expensive and
prone to damage under impact loading due to their brittle behaviour [2–4].
Hybridization is a common procedure adopted to improve damage tolerance,
obtain specific properties and enhance the flexibility of composite materials
[5–10]. Despite the fact that natural fibres as reinforcements in polymers can
provide numerous advantages such as low densities, good sound absorption,
non-abrasiveness, high specific properties and sharp curvature allowances (with
no fracture) [11–13], their applications in the non-structural components such as
panels, ceilings, partition boards and interior car components are still limited
owing to their low impact resistance and difficulty in assessing the induced
damage [14]. Thus, the combinations of natural fibres with low-cost engineering
materials and synthetic fibres have generated great interest recently.
Hybrid layers (inter-ply layers) of composite laminates can strongly influence
the mechanical properties [15,16], impact loading resistance and damage tolerance
[17–19]. Ahmed and Vijayarangan [20] studied the effect of stacking sequence on
tensile, flexural and inter-laminar shear properties of jute and glass fabric rein-
forced hybrid composites. They observed that using glass fibres as extreme layers
enhanced the mechanical properties of the composites. Abdul Khalil et al. [21]
compared the mechanical properties of oil palm of empty fruit bunch and glass
fibre reinforced composites with different layer arrangements. They indicated that
using glass fibres as outer layers improved the tensile and flexural strength of
1266
Selver et al. Journal of Industrial Textiles 51(8)3

hybrid composites. Amico et al. [22] analysed the mechanical properties (tensile,
flexural, short-beam strength and pendulum impact resistance) of sisal (S), glass
(G) and glass/sisal (GS) fibre composites in various stacking sequences. They
observed that highest impact resistance was achieved when glass fibre layers
were stacked together in hybrid composite laminates. Ricciardi et al. [23] manu-
factured basalt/flax composites with three different symmetrical configurations to
compare their impact damage tolerance. They observed that complex mode of
failures and different damage areas occurred at the interfaces between different
fibres types. Gujjala et al.[24] investigated the effect of stacking sequence of E-glass
fabric layers combined with jute fabric layers on the mechanical properties of
woven jute/glass fibre hybrid composites, i.e. tensile, flexural and inter-laminar
shear properties. The results showed significant improvement in inter-laminar
shear strength and tensile strength for composites prepared with E-glass fabric
at extreme layers; meanwhile, the maximum flexural strength was obtained with
composite GJGJ which has a fabric stacking sequence of “glass-jute-glass-jute.”
Many authors have reported the impact properties of natural fibre reinforced
composites combined with synthetic fibres, while literature on their performances
under post-impact loadings is scant. Rubio-Lopez et al. [25] compared CAI of flax/
polylactic acid (PLA) and glass/epoxy composites. They observed that flax/PLA
composites had higher normalised residual strength than carbon/epoxy composites.
Dhakal et al. [26] indicated that combination of higher strain to failure fibres such as
basalt with hemp fibres improved both post-impact and damage tolerance of com-
posites. Ariff et al. [27] examined CAI properties of bamboo/glass fibre hybrid
composites containing carbon nanotubes. Ismail et al. [28] analysed impact and
compression after impact response of kenaf/glass hybrid composites and observed
that larger damage areas reduced the compressive strength for all composites.
Habibi et al. [29] investigated the low-velocity impact and post impact performance
of flax fibre/epoxy composites under different impact angles. They observed that the
impact damage areas increased at higher impact energies and angles while there was
a drop in CAI strength with the increase of the damage areas and impact angles.
Up till now, far too little attention has been paid on the effect of stacking
sequence on post-impact or CAI behaviour of natural fibre/artificial fibre
(hybrid) composites in the available literature. In this work, therefore, we focus
on the effect of stacking sequence on both impact and post-impact performance of
hybrid jute/glass–epoxy and flax/glass-epoxy composites with different stacking
sequences by comparing them with jute-epoxy, flax-epoxy and glass-epoxy com-
posite laminates. Moreover, this paper adopts simulations with adding Abaqus
software to predict impact behaviours of these composite laminates and compar-
ison of these simulations with experimental results.

Material
Glass, natural and hybrid composite laminates were manufactured using woven
glass, flax and jute fabrics. Details of these fabrics are presented in Table 1.
4Selver et al. Journal of Industrial Textiles1267
0(0)

Table 1. Fabric properties.

Areal
Density density Weaving Thickness
Material (g/cm3) (g/m2) pattern Warp/cm Weft/cm (mm)

Glass 2.55 300 Plain 3 3

Jute 1.46 292 Plain 7 7
Flax 1.40 296 Canvas 20 10

Figure 1. Fabric stacking sequences of composite laminates (G: glass; F: flax; and J: jute fabrics).

Glass and natural fibre (jute and flax) fabrics were supplied by Fibermak [30] and
Kumasci [31], respectively.
Hybrid preforms were prepared with different stacking sequences before pro-
ducing the composite laminates as shown in Figure 1. The stacking sequences of
other preforms are also presented in Figure 1. It can be seen that the natural fibre
layers are placed either in the interior or exterior of hybrid composites for the
comparison purpose. Composite preforms were infused with an epoxy system
comprised of FBRMAK 1564 epoxy resin (75% wt.) and FBRMAK 3487 hard-
ener (25% wt.) using vacuum bagging method as shown in Figure 2 at 90 centi-
grade for 1 h. The properties, i.e. fibre volume fraction, thickness and density of the
composite laminates are given in Table 2, where GG, JJ, FF, GJ, GF, JG and FG
are referred to glass/epoxy, jute/epoxy, flax/epoxy, glass-jute/epoxy, glass-flax/
epoxy, jute-glass/epoxy, and flax-glass/epoxy, respectively.
1268
Selver et al. Journal of Industrial Textiles 51(8)5

Figure 2. Manufacturing of composites using vacuum infusion method.

Test methods
The density of the composite specimens was measured using ASTM D792 - 08
standards through a digital densimeter. Glass fibre volume fraction of glass and
hybrid composites was measured using the ISO 1172:1999 standard method by
burning the epoxy and natural fibre parts of the composites. However, JJ and FF
samples do not have any glass portion, thus burning of the samples may remove all
the composite components. Therefore, volume fractions of the JJ and FF compo-
sites were calculated theoretically by using equation (1) [32]

Wf nlayer:gr :L:w
Volume of fiber df df nlayer:gr
Volume fraction ðVf Þ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼
Volume of composite L:w:h L:w:h h:df
(1)

where Vf is the reinforcement fibre volume fraction (%); Wf , weight of reinforce-

ment fibre; df , density of fibre; L, length of the specimen; w, width of the spec-
imen;h, thickness of the specimen; gr , areal density of the fabric; n � layer, number
of the layer in the laminate.
Impact resistance of composites was measured using a BESMAK drop-weight
impact testing machine as illustrated in Figure 3(a) with a 16 mm diameter striker
at Mustafa Koseoglu Composite Lab, Istanbul Technical University. Composite
samples were cut into 100 mm � 150 mm dimensions by following the ASTM
D7136 standard. Composite specimens were subjected to 20 J, 30 J, 40 J, and 50 J
to measure their maximum energy absorption and impact loads. Compression tests
and compression after impact (CAI) tests were conducted on the already impacted
6Selver et al. Journal of Industrial Textiles1269
0(0)

Table 2. Properties of composite laminates.

Sample Stacking Density Thickness Jute Flax

Code sequence (g/cm3) (mm) GF Vf (%) Vf (%) Vf (%)

GG [(0/90)3]S 1.81 (0.01) 3.00 (0.07) 46.50 – –

JJ [0/90]S 1.22 (0.01) 2.95 (0.04) – 26.90 –
FF [0/90/0/90/0] 1.26 (0.03) 2.79 (0.04) – – 37.90
GJ [(0/90/0/)G/(0)J]S 1.47 (0.02) 2.95 (0.07) 23.90 13.50 –
JG [(0)J/(0/90/0/)G]S 1.48 (0.02) 2.96 (0.08) 23.50 13.50 –
GF [(0/90)2G/(0)F]S 1.61 (0.01) 3.09 (0.07) 30.50 – 13.70
FG [(0)F(0/90)2G]S 1.61 (0.01) 3.09 (0.09) 30.00 – 13.70

Figure 3. Test equipment for: (a) drop-weight impact test and (b) CAI test.

samples using Zwick Roell/Z100 testing machine as shown in Figure 3(b) at a

crosshead speed of 1 mm/min according to ASTM D7137. Impact damage regions
were measured using Bs200Pro imaging program. Zeiss-EVO LS10 scanning elec-
tron microscope (SEM) was used to evaluate the impact failures of composite
laminates at 30 kV.

Finite element model description

In order to investigate the damage failures of hybrid composite laminates theoret-
ically, modelling methodologies of the composite materials failure and preload
have been assessed. For this aim, a finite element model (FEM) with adding
Abaqus software was developed using Hashin failure criteria for the composite
1270
Selver et al. Journal of Industrial Textiles 51(8)7

Figure 4. FEM model of the composite laminates and hemispherical impactor.

materials and material model in order to simulate the failure mechanisms, force–
time and energy–time histories. In the FEM, the sphere-shaped impactor was
defined as a rigid body with radius of 16 mm and was placed right on the composite
laminate with a given velocity of 1.12 m/s to give impact energy of around 30 J.
Composite laminates were modelled with the S4R conventional shell element. This
was a four nodes quadrilateral conventional shell element with a reduced integra-
tion scheme (mandatory for an explicit integration scheme) [33]. The finite element
model of the impact system is illustrated in Figure 4. Elastic modulus (E11 , E22
and E33 ), shear modulus (G12 , G23 and G13 ), Poisson’s ratios (V12, V23, V13), and
longitudinal tensile strength (Xt ) values of composite samples were taken from the
previous work [34], while tensile strength of epoxy (Zt ) was obtained from the
supplier [35]. In-plane shear strengths (S12 , S23 and S13 ) of the composite lami-
nates were calculated from equations (2) and (3) [36]
� � � ��
pffiffiffiffiffi� Gm
S12 ¼ Fms Cv 1 þ Vf � Vf 1 � (2)
Gf

where Gm and Gf are the shear modulus of the matrix and fibre respectively; Fms ,
shear strength of matrix; Cv , coefficient of voids.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4Vv
Cv ¼ 1 � (3)
pð1 � Vf Þ

where Vv is the void volume fraction in composite laminates.

The longitudinal compressive strength (Xc ), transverse tensile strength (Yt ), and
transverse compressive strength (Yc ) of composite laminas were calculated by the
following equations [37]

E11 ðET2 Þ
Xc ¼ (4)
V12
8Selver et al. Journal of Industrial Textiles1271
0(0)

1=3
ET2 ¼ ðETm Þð1 � Vf Þ (5)

Yt ¼ E22 ðET2 Þ (6)

YC ¼ E22 ðEc2 Þ (7)

" � � #
� c� d Em d � c�
E2 ¼ x þ 1� Em (8)
s Ef s

� �1=2
d 4ðVf Þ
¼ ðfor circular fibres with square array packingÞ (9)
s p

where ET2 , ultimate transverse tensile strain of lamina; ETm , ultimate tensile strain of
epoxy; Vf , fibre volume fraction; Ec2 , ultimate compressive failure strain of lamina;
Ecm , ultimate compressive failure strain of matrix; d, diameter of the fibres; s, center-
to-center spacing between the fibre; Em ; modulus of epoxy; Ef ; modulus of fibres.
Ecm is 0.03 for epoxy matrix [37].
In numerical simulation approach, intra-laminar damages in the composite
laminates can be quantified either by using stress or strain based criteria or by
employing suitable polynomial criteria such as Tsai Wu or Tsai Hill [38]. However,
these polynomial failure criteria are not ideal at the ply level and are used only to
predict the failure envelope of the laminate which are subjected to different multi-
axial loadings. Hashin and Rotem [39] and later modified by Hashin [40] proposed
that failure criteria can be applied at ply level. This criteria assume that the
damage initiation occurs as degradation of the composite. There are four
different damage initiation mechanisms which interact independently at the level
of each ply in Hashin criteria. These damage failures are tensile fibre failure Ft1 ,
compressive fibre failure F1c ; tensile matrix failure F2t and compressive matrix
failure F2c . The Hashin criteria for the two-dimensional case are presented as
follows
� �2
r11
Tensile fibre failure F1t ¼ if r11 � 0 (10)
Xt

� �2
r11
Compressive fibre failure F1c ¼ if r11 < 0 (11)
Xc

� �2 � � 2
r22 s12
Tensile matrix failure F2t ¼ þ if r22 > 0 (12)
Yt Zl
1272
Selver et al. Journal of Industrial Textiles 51(8)9

� �2 � �2
r22 s12
Compressive matrix failure F2c ¼ þ if r22 < 0 (13)
Yc Zl

where in equations (10) to (13), the quantities Xt and Xc denote the longitudinal
tensile and compressive strength, respectively, Yt and Yc denote the transverse tensile
and compressive strength, respectively, Zl denotes the longitudinal shear strength, r is
the stress which are applied on the element along various directions of composite, and
s stands for shear strength of the element. The intralaminar damages propagation can
affect the stiffness of the composite. The degradation of the stiffness of composite is
defined as the plane stress constitutive stiffness matrix. This matrix, which has three
independent damage indices d1 , d2 and d6 , is defined in the range [0,1] as follows
2 3
0
1 6 0 E1 ð1 � d1 Þ E01 � 21 ð1 � d1 Þ 0
7
C ¼ 4 E1 � 21 ð1 � d1 Þð1 � d2 Þ E02 ð1 � d2 Þ 0 5 (14)
D 0
0 0 G12 ð1 � d6 Þ

D ¼ 1 � � 12 � 21 ð1 � d1 Þð1 � d2 Þ (15)

The damage indices d1 , d2 and d6 are derived from the damage parameters d1t ,
d1c , d2t , and d2c , which are associated to the four independent intra-laminar damage
modes. A quadratic nominal stress criterion is employed for prediction of the initi-
ation of delamination in the composite laminates. This criterion assume that the
damage will initiate when a quadratic interaction function, which include the nominal
stress ratio, reaches a value of one as presented in the following expression [41]
� �2 � �2 � �2
hrn i rt rs
þ þ �1 (16)
rnc rtc rsc

where rn , rt and rs denote the normal stress and two shear stress, and rnc , rtc and
rsc are the peak values of the nominal stress when the deformation is either purely
normal to the interface or in the first or the second shear direction respectively.
Additionally, the damage can progress inside the composite laminate with
increase in load. Thus, the damage progression at the cohesive zone can be repre-
sented by power law fracture criteria based on the mixed mode inter-laminar
damage [41]
� �a � �b � �c
GI GII GIII
þ c þ �1 (17)
GcI GII GcIII

where GI ; GII and GIII represent the modes I, II and III energy release rate, respec-
tively. GcI ; GcII and GcIII refer to the modes I, II and III critical energy release rate,
Selver et al.
10 Journal of Industrial Textiles1273
0(0)

Table 3. Elastic and mechanical properties of composite laminates.

Glass composite Flax composite Jute composite

Property lamina lamina lamina

E11 ðGPaÞ 8.750 3.32 2.86

E22 ðGPa) 7.058 3.44 2.87
E33 ðGPaÞ 7.058 3.44 2.87
G12 ðGPaÞ 2.17 1.21 1.05
G23 ðGPaÞ 2.71 1.26 1.01
G13 ðGPaÞ 2.17 1.21 1.05
� 12 0.29 0.36 0.35
� 23 0.30 0.37 0.36
� 13 0.29 0.36 0.35
Xt ðMPaÞ 450 95.4 70.4
Xc ðMPaÞ 133 32.66 35.53
Yt ðMPaÞ 145.9 35.42 27.84
Yc ðMPaÞ 80.30 86.6 93.16
Zt ðMPaÞa – – –
S12 ðMPaÞ 223 48 35
S23 ðMPaÞ 225 50 38
S13 ðMPaÞ 223 48 35
a
Tensile strength of epoxy (Zt) is 73 MPa.

Table 4. The interfacial properties of composite laminates.

Composite Glass Flax Jute

code composite composite composite

Strength of matrix (MPa) r 70 70 72

s 55 55 60
Interface cohesive element Kn 0.15 0.038 0.025
stiffness (106 N/mm3) Kt 0.15 0.038 0.025

respectively and the parameters a; b and c are determined experimentally.

Material stiffness and strength parameters of composite materials which are
employed for the FEM model are listed in Table 3.
Additionally, the properties and fracture parameters of the interface between the
adjacent plies in the composite laminates, which are necessary to simulate the inter-
laminar damage failures, i.e. delamination, are listed in Table 4. Where r and s are the
interface stresses in the normal and shear directions and are equal to the normal and
shear stresses of epoxy resin, respectively. Meanwhile, Kn and Kt are the normal and
tangential interface stiffness respectively and can be determined as follows

aE33
Kn ¼ Kt ¼ (18)
tp
1274
Selver et al. Journal of Industrial Textiles 51(8)
11

where E33 is the through-thickness stiffness of composite laminates, tp is the thick-

ness of ply, which is connected by cohesive element, and a is a non-dimensional
parameter which is greater than 50.

Results and discussions

Table 2 presents the properties of glass, natural (flax and jute) and hybrid (jute/
glass and flax/glass) composites. Sample thicknesses are kept similar for the com-
parison purpose. It is evident that the density of glass/epoxy composites decreases
after the addition of jute or flax fibres while the stacking sequence do not change
the density values for jute/glass or flax/glass composites. Comparing total fibre
volume fractions (glass and natural fibres), glass/flax (GF and FG) composites
have higher fibre volume fractions than jute/glass (GJ and JG) composites.
Perhaps this is due to the fact that jute fabrics have higher warp and weft yarn
gaps than flax fabrics. It can also be seen from Table 1 that flax fabrics have higher
yarn density than jute fabrics, resulting in higher composite densities.

Impact test results

Table 5 and Figures 5 to 7 present drop-weight impact test results of glass, jute,
flax and hybrid (glass/jute and glass/flax) fibre reinforced composites at different
energy levels (20–50 J). Table 5 and Figure 5 show that glass/epoxy (GG) laminates
have the highest impact force than natural and hybrid composites at all impact
energy levels which can be attributed to the highest fibre volume fraction of glass
composites. Also, the impact resistance of glass fibres is much higher than natural
fibres. Comparing natural fibres composite laminates, flax/epoxy (FF) composites
have higher impact forces than jute/epoxy (JJ) composites at all energy levels. This
can be explained by the fact that flax fibres in the FF laminates have higher volume
fractions than jute in JJ composites. Additionally, flax fibres reinforced composites
are naturally stronger than jute fibres reinforced composites [34]. Comparing
hybrid composites, flax/glass (GF and FG) composites exhibit higher impact
forces than jute/glass (GJ and JG) composites at all energy levels. Again, this
can be attributed to stronger flax fibres compared to jute fibres. Table 5 indicates
the influence of stacking sequence on impact resistance of composites. It is also
apparent from Table 5 that stronger glass fibres at the outer face (impacted face)
provide higher impact loads than using them at core regions at all energy levels.
Figure 6 shows the force-deformation plots of all laminates with two deforma-
tion points (peak and permanent) for composite laminates during the impact load-
ing. The peak deformation occurs at the maximum peak force, while the
permanent deformation indicates the deformation values after the impactor
rebounds or penetrates the samples. It can be noticed that JJ and FF samples
have open curves revealing that the impactor has fully penetrated the samples at
all energy levels. However, glass and hybrid composites show close force-
deformation curves at 20 J and 30 J, indicating that the impactor cannot penetrate
Selver et al.
12 Journal of Industrial Textiles1275
0(0)

Table 5. Impact properties of composite laminates.

Force (N) Peak deformation (mm) Absorbed energy (J)

20 J
GG 5309 (63) 7.25 (0.01) 12.62 (0.07)
JJ 623 (119) 12.65 (2.2) 3.18 (0.75)
FF 896 (45) 27.78 (2.31) 12.77 (0.34)
GF 4776 (173) 7.84 (0.05) 13.52 (0.15)
FG 4581 (73) 8.44 (0.08) 13.77 (0.17)
GJ 3754 (105) 8.79 (0.13) 14.25 (0.13)
JG 3592 (155) 9.87 (0.07) 15.37 (0.13)
30 J
GG 6044 (60) 8.87 (0.11) 22.14 (0.52)
JJ 580 (32) 12.34 (1.52) 2.95 (0.30)
FF 897 (40) 35.76 (5.14) 15.43 (2.25)
GF 5206 (252) 9.69 (0.18) 23.57 (0.54)
FG 5170 (212) 10.43 (0.03) 24.14 (1.03)
GJ 4118 (166) 11.66 (0.28) 24.84 (0.20)
JG 3713 (318) 13.36 (0.68) 25.12 (0.19)
40 J
GG 6581 (108) 10.47 (0.15) 33.18 (0.27)
JJ 560 (33) 13.47 (0.69) 3.22 (0.30)
FF 825 (31) 25.55 (3.4) 17.52 (2.78)
GF 5622 (281) 11.80 (0.30) 34.14 (0.08)
FG 5500 (270) 12.78 (0.06) 34.81 (0.07)
GJ 4055 (206) 15.42 (0.39) 34.60 (0.06)
JG 3756 (189) 20.42 (1.76) 35.38 (1.33)
50 J
GG 6768 (179) 12.14 (0.18) 43.67 (0.34)
JJ 583 (34) 13.27 (0.69) 3.47 (0.52)
FF 888 (39) 32.25 (1.75) 15.3 (0.31)
GF 5622 (281) 11.80 (0.30) 34.14 (0.08)
FG 5394 (186) 15.70 (0.10) 45.37 (0.07)
GJ 4007 (45) 26.87 (3.45) 42.55 (2.37)
JG 4003 (335) 37.65 (3.23) 46.89 (1.55)

those energy levels and rebounds after the impact loading. The penetration starts
for JG samples at 40 J as shown in open curve in Figure 6. The impact damage
photos of glass and hybrid composite laminates are presented in Figure 8 for all
impact energy levels. It can be noticed that the penetration occurs at 40 J impact
energy for JG laminates, while GJ samples do not have a clear penetration.
Figures 6 and 8 both exhibit that JG and GJ composites have full penetration at
50 J, while GF and FG still have impactor rebounding.
From Table 5, it can be seen that the peak deformation values of GG compo-
sites are lower than hybrid composites at all energy levels. This can be explained by
1276
Selver et al. Journal of Industrial Textiles 51(8)
13

6000 6000
20J 30J
5000 5000
GG GG
JJ JJ
4000 FF 4000 FF
GF
Force (N)

GF

Force (N)
FG FG
3000 GJ 3000 GJ
JG JG
2000 2000

1000 1000

0 0
0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03
Time (ms) Time (ms)

40J 50J
6000 6000
GG GG
5000 JJ 5000 JJ
FF FF
GF GF
Force (N)

Force (N)

4000 4000
FG FG
GJ GJ
3000 JG 3000 JG

2000 2000

1000 1000

0 0
0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05

Time (ms) Time (ms)

Figure 5. Force–time history of composites at different energy levels (20–50 J).

the fact that addition of natural fibres reduces the impact resistance of composites,
and hence the deflection is greater with higher damage regions as shown in
Figure 8. Figure 9 shows that JJ and FF composites have full impactor penetra-
tions at all energy levels, and FF deformation is higher than that of JJ composites.
However, JG and GJ composites show higher deformation values than GF and
FG composites at all energy levels due to higher damage regions as shown in
Figure 8. Comparing the stacking sequence, it is evident that natural fibre layers
in the exterior exhibit higher deformation values than placing them in the interior
at all energy levels. A possible explanation for this might be that natural fibres
fracture or deform earlier than glass fibres enabling the impactor to penetrate
deeper into those hybrid composites.
Figure 7 presents the energy–time histories of composite laminates at 20–50 J
impact energy levels. The low-impact energy levels produce two energy peak points
(I and II) when the impactor rebounds as shown in 20 J impact energy. The peak-I
is the absorbed energy due to damage modes such as matrix cracks, delamination,
and fibre breakages. Table 5 provides the amount of the absorbed energy for all
composites. Peak-II is the excessive energy causing the impactor to rebound. It is
Selver et al.
14 Journal of Industrial Textiles1277
0(0)

Peak deformation

6000 6000
20J 30J

5000 GG 5000 GG
JJ JJ
FF FF
4000 GF 4000 GF
Force (N)

FG

Force (N)
FG
GJ GJ
3000 JG 3000 JG

2000 2000

1000 1000

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Deformation (mm) Deformation (mm)

Permanent deformation

40J 50J
GG
6000 6000
GG JJ
JJ FF
5000 FF GF
GF FG
GJ
Force (N)

Force (N)

4000 FG 4000
GJ JG
JG
3000

2000 2000

1000

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 10 20 30
Deformation (mm) Deformation (mm)

Figure 6. Force–deformation history of composites at different energy levels (20–50 J).

clear that GG laminates have both peaks, indicating that full penetration does not
occur at all energy levels. However, FF and JJ have only peak-I, and hence the
impactor penetrates at all energy levels as shown in Figure 10. Table 5 shows that
FF composites absorb more energy than JJ composites at all energy levels.
However, under the impact loading, the brittle JJ samples are completely fractured
and only a small amount of energy is absorbed. Table 5 and Figure 7 show that
hybrid composites absorb more energy than GG laminates at all energy levels due
to having higher impact induced areas as shown in Figure 10, since hybrid com-
posites absorb the impact energy with damage modes during the impact loading.
Comparing hybrid composites, jute/glass (JG and GJ) composites absorb more
energy than flax/glass (FG and GF) composites due to higher impact damage
regions as shown in Figure 10. From Table 5, it is clear that using natural fibres
at outer regions (JG and FG) enhances energy absorption capacities of composites
compared to using them at the core regions (GJ and GF). The possible reason
might be that damage propagation mechanics of hybrid composites have
1278
Selver et al. Journal of Industrial Textiles 51(8)
15

20J 30J
20 28

24
16 II
20

Energy (J)
Energy (J)

GG
12
16 JJ
GG
FF
JJ
12 GF
8 FF
FG
GF
GJ
FG 8 JG
4 GJ
JG
I 4

0 0
0,00 0,02 0,04 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04
Time (ms)
40 40J 50 50J
35 45

40
30
35
Energy (J)

25
Energy (J)

GG GG
30
JJ JJ
20 FF 25 FF
GF GF
15 FG 20 FG
GJ GJ
15
10 JG JG
10
5
5
0 0
0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05 0,06 0,07 0,08
Time (ms) Time (ms)

Figure 7. Energy–time history of composite laminates.

changed after changing the stacking sequences of composites. One interesting

finding is that jute or flax fibres highly contribute towards the impact damage
tolerance of hybrid composites although they have very low impact performances.
These results are likely to be related to hybridisation effect of fibre reinforced
composites.
Figure 8 and 9 show that impact induced areas increase with increasing impact
energies. Figure 9 does not present the impact damage areas of JJ and FF compo-
sites due to difficulties in measuring the exact damage regions as shown in
Figure 10, especially for FF samples. It can be seen that composite samples with
outer regions containing natural fibres have higher impact damage areas compared
to those composites which have natural fibres in core regions. Those higher
damage areas are the result of absorbing more impact energies.
Figure 11 presents the cross-sectional SEM images of GF, FG, GJ, JG and GG
composite laminates impacted at 30 J. All the composites absorb the impact energy
through delamination, matrix cracks and fibre breakages. It can be seen from
Figure 11(e) that GG composite sample has lower damaged regions compared
to hybrid composites. Also, there are small delaminated regions and matrix
cracks with localised glass fibre breakages at the back side of the composites.
Selver et al.
16 Journal of Industrial Textiles1279
0(0)

GG

JG

GJ

FG

GF

20J 30J 40J 50J

Figure 8. Photos of impacted glass and hybrid composites at different energy levels (20–50 J).
1280
Selver et al. Journal of Industrial Textiles 51(8)
17

GG
600 JG
GJ
500 FG
2
Damage Area (mm ) GF

400

300

200

100
20 30 40 50
Impact Energy (J)

Figure 9. Impact damage areas of glass and hybrid composites at different energy levels
(20–50 J).

FF

JJ

20J 30J 40J 50J

Figure 10. Photos of impacted natural fibre composites at different energy levels (20–50 J).

Comparing GF and FG composites, there are more severe damages at FG

composite as shown in Figure11(b) due to the presence of weak flax fibre layers
in the exterior of the hybrid composites. There are both glass and flax fibre break-
ages for the FG composites at the back side. However, only glass fibre breakages
can be seen for the GF composites as shown in Figure 11(a).
Figure 11 also exhibits that GJ and JG composites have higher impact damage
regions compared to GF and FG composites. Similar results can be seen from
Figure 8. This is due to flax fibres have higher impact damage resistance than that
of jute fibres as shown in Figure 5. Figure 11 also indicates that JG composites
have severe damages than GJ composites due to using jute fibre layers in the
Selver et al.
18 Journal of Industrial Textiles1281
0(0)

Figure 11. SEM images of 30 J impacted composite samples: (a) GF, (b) FG, (c) GJ, (d) JG
and (e) GG.

exterior, resulting in both jute and glass fibre breakages at the back face as shown
in Figure 11(d). This result can be supported by having higher damage areas as
shown in Figures 8 and 9 for JG composite. Using jute fibre layers in the interior as
indicated in Figure 11(c) results in matrix cracks and delaminations rather than
fibre breakages while there are extensive damages for the JG composite as illus-
trated in Figure 11(d).
The results of simulations are presented in Figures 12 and 13 which show the
maximum principle stress for all composite laminates at 0.8 millisecond time from
impact loading. Different colours in these figures show the level of stresses in the
1282
Selver et al. Journal of Industrial Textiles 51(8)
19

Figure 12. Maximum principle stress for all composite laminates at 0.8 ms time for GG, JJ and
FF samples.

front and back of the composite laminates at an impact energy of 30 J. Generally,

the maximum stress occurs at the position directly under the impactor in front of
composite plates, and then it gradually spreads towards the back face resulting in
bending of the composite structure. Additionally, it can be seen from Figure 12
that there is a wider spread of maximum stress on the jute and flax composites
compared to the glass composite due to weaker interfacial bonding between their
individual layers.
Furthermore, hybrid composite laminates (FG, GJ, and JG composite lami-
nates as shown in Figure 13) illustrate low max stress compared to that natural
composite laminates which is due to the placement of glass fabric layers that
reduce the damage during impact loading.
Selver et al.
20 Journal of Industrial Textiles1283
0(0)

Figure 13. Maximum principle stress for all composite laminates at 0.8 ms time for hybrid
samples.
1284
Selver et al. Journal of Industrial Textiles 51(8)
21

Additionally, Figures 14 and 15 compare the experimental and numerical sim-

ulation results of glass, flax, jute and hybrid composites impacted at 30 J. It is clear
from Figure 14 that for force–time behaviour, there is a close agreement between
the experimental and numerical simulations. For instance, JJ and FF composites
have very identical impact force values as the force values undulate in similar
manners. For GG composites, both numerical and experimental test results give
very close maximum force values. Similar results can be seen for the hybrid com-
posites. Figure 14 exhibits that the failure times are higher for the modelling com-
pared to experimental results especially for the hybrid composites. This is due to
the fact that composite laminates fractured earlier during experiments, while the
simulation is based on the assumption that there is perfect bonding between fibres
and matrix. As no surface treatment is done for natural fibres to enhance the
interfacial bonding so interfacial bonding between matrix and fibres is poor.
Figure 15 the shows energy–time histories of experimental and numerical sim-
ulations for all composite laminates. It can be seen that FF and JJ composites have
very similar energy absorption behaviour with a linear line, indicating that there is
full penetration for those samples. For GG and hybrid composites, the modelling
results also have two peak points indicating the rebounding of the impactor.
Again, there is very good agreement between the experimental and simulation
values for energy absorptions.

Compression and compression after impact test results

Table 6 presents the compression and CAI test results of glass, natural and hybrid
fabric composite laminates. From the table, it can be clearly seen that the com-
pression strength of GG composite is higher than natural and hybrid composite
laminates due to higher tensile strength of glass fibres. Although the hybrid com-
posites have glass fibres, their volume fractions are smaller than the pristine GG
composite, since stronger glass fibres carry most of the loads. Comparing natural
fibres, jute composites have slightly higher compressive strength than that of flax
composites although the fibre volume fraction of flax composite is higher than jute
composite as shown in Table 2. This might be due to that jute fibres and epoxy
have better interfacial bonding than flax fibres and epoxy, hence they are able to
carry higher loads before the failure. Table 6 also indicates that compressive
strengths of both glass/flax (GF) and flax/glass (FG) laminates are higher than
jute/glass (GJ) and jute/glass (JG) hybrid composites. This can be explained by the
fact that flax/glass composites have higher glass fibre volume fractions than that of
jute/glass composites as presented in Table 2. It is interesting to mention that
stacking sequences strongly influence the compressive strengths of the composites.
It is evident that using jute fibres at the outer region (JG) provides about 10%
higher compressive strength than using them at the core region (GJ). Similar
results can be seen for flax/glass composites, while GF composites have about
20% higher compressive strength compared to FG composites.
Selver et al.
22 Journal of Industrial Textiles1285
0(0)

500 FF
JJ Experimental 900 Experimental
Modelling Modelling

400

600
Force (N)

300

Force (N)
200
300

100

0 0
0,000 0,004 0,008 0,012 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03

Time (ms) Time (ms)

Experimental FG Experimental
GF
Modelling 5000 Modelling
5000

4000 4000
Force (N)
Force (N)

3000 3000

2000 2000

1000 1000

0 0
0,000 0,005 0,010 0,015 0,020 0,025 0,030 0,03 0,000 0,005 0,010 0,015 0,020 0,025 0,030 0,035
Time (ms) Time (ms)
4000 GJ 4000
Experimental JG Experimental
Modelling
Modelling

3000 3000
Force (N)

Force (N)

2000 2000

1000 1000

0 0
0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04
Time (ms) Time (ms)
GG Experimental
6000 Modelling

5000

4000
Force (N)

3000

2000

1000

0
0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03
Time (ms)

Figure 14. Force–time history of experimental and modelling results for composite laminates
impacted at 30 J.
1286
Selver et al. Journal of Industrial Textiles 51(8)
23

4 20

JJ FF
16
3
Energy (J)

Energy (J)
12
2
Experimental
Modelling 8
Experimental
1 Modelling
4

0 0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03
Time (ms) Time (ms)
30 GF
30 FG
25
25

20
Energy (J)

20
Energy (J)

15
Experimental 15
Experimental
Modelling
Modelling
10
10

5 5

0 0
0,000 0,005 0,010 0,015 0,020 0,025 0,000 0,005 0,010 0,015 0,020 0,025
Time (ms) Time (ms)
30 JG
30 GJ

25
25

20 20
Energy (J)

Energy (J)

Experimental
15 Modelling
15
Experimental
Modelling
10 10

5 5

0 0
0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04
Time (ms) Time (ms)
28 GG

24

20
Energy (J)

16

12 Experimental
Modelling
8

0
0,00 0,01 0,02
Time (ms)

Figure 15. Energy–time history of experimental and modelling results for composite laminates
impacted at 30 J.
 24
Selver et al.

Table 6. Compression and CAI test results for composite laminates.

Impact
energy (J) GG (MPa) FF (MPa) JJ (MPa) GJ (MPa) JG (MPa) GF (MPa) FG (MPa)

0 144.6 (1.1) 43.9 (0.8) 46.1 (1.5) 93.3 (1.1) 84.5 (1.5) 122.8 (1.2) 101.8 (1.3)
20 133.7 (1.8) 40.2 (1.3) 42.5 (0.6) 88.2 (1.6) 79.5 (1.4) 119.8 (1.1) 97.2 (1.6)
30 125.1 (1.2) 36.2 (1.4) 37.9 (1.1) 84.4 (0.6) 75.4 (1.2) 114.5 (0.5) 95.9 (1.0)
40 113.7 (2.8) 34.1 (0.8) 34.6 (0.9) 80.9 (0.9) 73.8 (1.3) 106.6 (0.4) 93.9 (1.4)
50 99.9 (2.0) 30.2 (0.7) 29.6 (0.4) 74.1 (0.5) 71.2 (0.9) 97.1 (1.2) 90.3 (1.5)
0(0)
Journal of Industrial Textiles1287
1288
Selver et al. Journal of Industrial Textiles 51(8)
25

GG
100
FF
95
JJ
JG
CAI Strength Retension (%)

90 GJ
FG
85 GF

80

75

70

65

60
20 30 40 50
Impact Energy (J)

Figure 16. CAI retentions of composite at different energy levels.

Table 6 also shows that GG composite has highest CAI strength values at all
energy levels compared to natural and hybrid composites due to its higher glass
fibre volume fraction. CAI strengths of all composites decrease with increasing
impact energies. It can be seen that FF and JJ composites have similar CAI
strength values. Table 6 also indicates that using glass fibres as extreme layers
can provide higher CAI strength values than using them at the core regions for
both jute/glass and flax/glass composites. The observed increase in CAI can be
attributed to smaller damage areas produced during the impact loadings as shown
in Figure 9. Comparing flax/glass and jute/glass hybrid composites, GF and FG
composites exhibit higher CAI strength values than that of GJ and JG composites
at all energy levels.
Figure 16 presents the compression strength retention (%) which is the ratio of
the compression strength of the impacted specimens to non-impacted specimens
(rCAI =rC ) at all impact energy levels. Although CAI strengths of hybrid composites
are lower than GG composites, their residual strength is higher according to
Figure 16. For example, GG composite retained 92% of its compressive strength,
while JG, GJ, FG, GF composite laminates retained 93%, 94%, 95%, and 97% of
their compressive strengths, respectively, at 20 J impact energy. For other impact
energy levels (30–50 J), GG laminates retained 86–69% of their compressive
strength, while JG, GJ, FG, and GF composites retained 89–84%, 90–79%, 94–
88%, and 93–79% of their compressive strength, respectively. These results show
Selver et al.
26 Journal of Industrial Textiles1289
0(0)

that hybrid composites have higher damage tolerance than GG composites at all
energy levels. It seems possible that these results are due to using natural fibres
which inhibit or postpone the failure of composites during compressive loading
and consequently hybrid composites fracture with slower rate compared to the
brittle glass composites.
Comparing stacking sequences, GJ and JG composites exhibit similar residual
strength values for impact energies between 20 and 40 J. However, JG composites
have slightly higher retention values at 50 J although JG composites have higher
damage areas as indicated in Figure 9. A possible explanation for this might be
that the impact loading is first faced by weak jute fibres and the impact energy is
mostly absorbed in the initial part. Afterwards, the samples fail due to delamina-
tion rather than glass fibre breakages as they are in core regions for JG composite.
However, the impact force breaks the glass fibres first due to meeting them at the
impact point, and then they reach to core region for GJ composites. Hence, fewer
glass fibre breakages occur leading to improved residual properties for JG com-
pared to GJ composite, since most of the compressive loads are carried by the
strong glass fibres rather than the weak natural fibres, and fibre breakages signif-
icantly reduce the compressive strength of the composite laminates. Similar results
can be seen for GF and FG composites where the flax fibres at outer regions
provide higher retention values at all energy levels (except 20 J).
Comparing CAI strength of natural fabric composites, JJ and FF composites
have similar retention values for impact energies between 20 and 30 J. However,
FF composites have higher values for 40–50 J. This is probably due to extensive
damage regions for JJ composites at those energy levels as can be seen in Figure 10,
and hence they could not retain their strength as much as the FF composites.
As composite samples have different glass fibre volume fractions and density
values (see Table 2), the compression and CAI results are presented in Figure 17
after normalisation. Normalisation is done by multiplying the measured compres-
sion and CAI strength values by the ratio of common 46.5% fibre volume fraction
and 1.81 g/cm3 values to actual composite fibre volume fraction and density as
shown in Table 2. Figure 17(a) indicates that GG composites still have highest
compression and CAI when all the samples have same density values (except GF
for 30, 40 and 50 J). On the other hand, natural fibre composites have the lowest
compression and CAI values. It might be expected that the natural fibre or hybrid
composites have higher specific compressive strength values compared to glass/
epoxy composites. However, jute and flax fabrics do not have any chemical treat-
ments to increase the interfacial bonding between the fibres and epoxy resins. This
might have resulted in poor mechanical properties compared to strongly bonded
glass/epoxy composites. Figure 17(b) shows the compressive strength of glass and
hybrid composites when they all have the same glass fibre volume fractions. It can
be seen that hybrid composites have higher specific strength than that of GG
composite at all energy levels. It is clear that FG samples have higher specific
values than JG sample which is due to their higher glass fibre volume fractions
(see Table 2). Similar results can be seen for GJ and GF samples as well.
1290
Selver et al. Journal of Industrial Textiles 51(8)
27

(a)
GG
Normalised (density) Compression and CAI Strength (MPa)

FF
140
JJ
GJ
120 JG
GF
100 FG

80

60

40

0 10 20 30 40 50
Impact Energy (J)

(b)
GG
GJ
Normalised (Vf) Comprerssion and CAI Strength (MPa)

JG
180 GF
FG
160

140

120

100

0 10 20 30 40 50
Impact Energy (J)

Figure 17. Results for: (a) Normalised compression and CAI strength to density and
(b) Normalised compression and CAI strength to volume fraction.

Conclusions
In the present work, impact and post-impact response of thermoset composite
laminates manufactured from glass, flax, jute fabrics and their hybrid combina-
tions (glass/jute and glass/flax) made with various stacking sequences was studied
Selver et al.
28 Journal of Industrial Textiles1291
0(0)

in order to optimize the composite structures for improved impact resistance and
damage tolerance.
Hybrid composite laminates consisted from glass and natural fabric layers were
manufactured using vacuum-assisted resin infusion method. The low velocity
impact and post impact compression response for all composites were character-
ised by using drop-weight impact and compression after impact tests. The sub-
surface damage modes were also investigated using scanning electron microscopy.
Additionally, the proposed simulations for low-velocity impact response of
glass and hybrid composite laminates were developed and the experimental and
numerical results in terms of time-force and time-energy plots were compared. The
following key conclusions can be drawn from the present study:

• Glass/epoxy composites had higher maximum impact force than jute/epoxy,

flax/epoxy and their hybrid forms. Comparing the stacking sequences, hybrid
composites manufactured by placing glass fabric layers in the exterior exhibited
higher peak force values at all energy levels than hybrid composites in which
glass fabric layers were in the interior. This was due to better impact resistance
of glass fibres compared to natural fibres.
• Impact tests results showed that the natural or hybrid composites absorbed
more impact energy than glass/epoxy composites due to extensive impact
damages.
• Impact induced areas of glass/epoxy composites were lower than natural or
hybrid composites. For stacking sequences, higher damages areas were obtained
for hybrid composites in which natural fibre layers were placed in the exterior
while composites with glass fibre layers in the exterior mitigated the damage.
• Glass/epoxy composited had higher compression and CAI strength values than
natural and hybrid composites. However, hybrid composites had higher residual
compressive strength than glass/epoxy composites.
• Changing the stacking sequence significantly affected the post-impact perfor-
mance. Using the natural fibres in the exterior reduced the glass fibre breakages.
Hence, higher residual compressive strength values were obtained especially at
higher impact energies.
• Good agreement was observed between numerical and experimental results in
terms of time–force and time–energy plots at 30 J impact energy for all com-
posite laminates.

Acknowledgements
€
The authors acknowledge Prof. Nuray Uçar and Mr. Semih Ozkur from Istanbul Technical
University for assisting drop-weight impact tests.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
1292
Selver et al. Journal of Industrial Textiles 51(8)
29

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.

ORCID iD
Erdem Selver https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0246-6878

References
[1] Gning PB, Tarfaoui M, Collombet F, et al. Damage development in thick composite
tubes under impact loading and influence on implosion pressure: experimental obser-
vations. Compos Part B 2005; 36: 306–318.
[2] Liang S, Guillaumat L and Gning P-B. Impact behaviour of flax/epoxy composite
plates. Int J Impact Eng 2015; 80: 56–64.
[3] Haghdan S and Smith GD. Natural fiber reinforced polyester composites: a literature
review. J Rein Plast Comp 2015; 34: 1179–1190.
[4] Selver E. Impact and damage tolerance of shear thickening fluids-impregnated carbon
and glass fabric composites. J Reinf Plast Compos 2019; 38: 669–688.
[5] Petrucci R, Santulli C, Puglia D, et al. Impact and post-impact damage characterisation
of hybrid composite laminates based on basalt fibres in combination with flax, hemp
and glass fibres manufactured by vacuum infusion. Compos Part B 2015; 69: 507–515.
[6] Sarasini F, Tirillo J, Valente M, et al. Effect of basalt fiber hybridization on the impact
behavior under low impact velocity of glass/basalt woven fabric/epoxy resin compo-
sites. Compos Part A 2013; 47: 109–123.
[7] Selver E and Potluri P. Glass/polypropylene commingled yarns for damage tolerant
thermoplastic composites. Euro Mech Sci 2017; 1: 93–103.
[8] Selver E, Potluri P, Soutis C, et al. Healing potential of hybrid materials for structural
composites. Compos Struct 2015; 122: 57–66.
[9] Selver E, Potluri P, Hogg P, et al. Impact damage tolerance of thermoset composites
reinforced with hybrid commingled yarns. Compos Part B 2016; 91: 522–538.
[10] Dalfi H, Katnam KB and Potluri P. Intra-laminar toughening mechanisms to enhance
impact damage tolerance of 2D woven composite laminates via yarn-level fiber hybrid-
ization and fiber architecture. Polym Compos 2019; 40: 4573–4587.
[11] Rowell RM, Sanadi A, Jacobson R, et al. Properties of kenaf/polypropylene composites.
Mississippi State: Springer, 1999, pp.381–392.
[12] Ali A, Shaker K, Nawab Y, et al. Impact of hydrophobic treatment of jute on moisture
regain and mechanical properties of composite material. J Reinf Plast Compos 2015; 34:
2059–2068.
[13] Selver E. Acoustic properties of hybrid glass/flax and glass/jute composites consisting
of different stacking sequences. Tekstil Mühen 2019; 26: 42–51.
[14] Santulli C. Impact properties of glass/plant fibre hybrid laminates. J Mater Sci 42:
3699–3707.
[15] Onal L and Adanur S. Effect of stacking sequence on the mechanical properties of
glass-carbon hybrid composites before and after impact. J Ind Text 2002; 31: 255–271.
[16] Sezgin H and Berkalp OB. The effect of hybridization on significant characteristics of
jute/glass and jute/carbon-reinforced composites. J Ind Text 2017; 47: 283–296.
Selver et al.
30 Journal of Industrial Textiles1293
0(0)

[17] Gonzalez EV, Maimi P, Sainz de Aja JR, et al. Effects of interply hybridization on the
damage resistance and tolerance of composite laminates. Compos Struct 2014; 108:
319–331.
[18] De Rosa IM, Santulli C, Sarasini F, et al. Post-impact damage characterization of
hybrid configurations of jute/glass polyester laminates using acoustic emission and
IR thermography. Compos Sci Technol 2009; 69: 1142–1150.
[19] Naik NK, Ramasimha R, Arya H, et al. Impact response and damage tolerance char-
acteristics of glass-carbon/epoxy hybrid composite plates. Compos Part B 2001; 32:
565–574.
[20] Ahmed KS and Vijayarangan S. Tensile, flexural and interlaminar shear properties of
woven jute and jute-glass fabric reinforced polyester composites. J Mater Process
Technol 2008; 207: 330–335.
[21] Aabdul Khalil HPS, Kang CW, Khairul A, et al. The effect of different laminations on
mechanical and physical properties of hybrid composites. J Reinf Plast Comp 2009; 28:
1123–1137.
[22] Amico SC, Angrizani CC and Drummond ML. Influence of the stacking sequence on
the mechanical properties of glass/sisal hybrid composites. J Reinf Plast Comp 2008;
29: 179–189.
[23] Ricciardi MR, Papa I, Lopresto V, et al. Effect of hybridization on the impact prop-
erties of flax/basalt epoxy composites: influence of the stacking sequence. Compos
Struct 2019; 214: 476–485.
[24] Gujjala R, Ojha S, Acharya S, et al. Mechanical properties of woven jute-glass hybrid-
reinforced epoxy composite. J Compos Mater 2013; 48: 3445–3455.
[25] Rubio-Lopez A, Artero-Guerrero J, Pernas-Sanchez J, et al. Compression after impact
of flax/PLA biodegradable composites. Polym Test 2017; 59: 127–135.
[26] Dhakal HN, Sarasini F, Santulli C, et al. Effect of basalt fibre hybridisation on post-
impact mechanical behaviour of hemp fibre reinforced composites. Compos Part A
2015; 75: 54–67.
[27] Nor AFM, Sultan MTH, Jawaid M, et al. Analysing impact properties of CNT filled
bamboo/glass hybrid nanocomposites through drop-weight impact testing, UWPI and
compression-after-impact behaviour. Compos Part B 2019; 168: 166–174.
[28] Ismail MF, Sultan MTH, Hamdan A, et al. Low velocity impact behaviour and post-
impact characteristics of kenaf/glass hybrid composites with various weight ratios.
J Mater Res Technol 2019; 8: 2662–2673.
[29] Habibi M, Selmi S, Laperriere L, et al. Experimental investigation on the response of
unidirectional flax fiber composites to low-velocity impact with after-impact tensile and
compressive strength measurement. Compos Part B 2019; 171: 246–253.
[30] FiberMak, www.kompozitsan.com/ (2016, accessed 2018).
[31] Kumaşçı, www.kumasci.com/shop/ (2016, accessed 2018).
[32] Cherif ZE, Poilane C, Falher T, et al. Influence of textile treatment on
mechanical and sorption properties of flax/epoxy composites. Polym Compos 2013;
34: 1761–1773.
[33] Lemanle Sanga RP, Garnier C and Pantale O, Approaches to simulate impact
damages on aeronautical composite structures (2018) In: International
conference on structural analysis of advanced materials (ICSAAM 2017), Bucharest,
Romania, 19–22 September 2017.
1294
Selver et al. Journal of Industrial Textiles 51(8)
31

[34] Selver E, Ucar N and Gulmez T. Effect of stacking sequence on tensile, flexural and
thermomechanical properties of hybrid flax/glass and jute/glass thermoset composites.
J Ind Text 2018; 48: 494–520.
[35] Huntsman, www.swiss-composite.ch/pdf/t-Araldite-LY1564-Aradur3486-3487-e.pdf
(accessed 10 May 2019).
[36] Lupasteanu V, Taranu N and Popoaei S. Theoretical strength properties of unidirec-
tional reinforced fiber reinforced polymer composites. Bulet Inst Polit Din Lasi Sect
Construct Arhitect 2013; 59: 83.
[37] Kaw AK. Mechanics of composite materials. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2005.
[38] Sun C. Comparative evaluation of failure analysis methods for composite laminates.
Springfield, Virginia: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Research,
1996.
[39] Hashin Z and Rotem A. A fatigue failure criterion for fiber reinforced materials.
J Compos Mater 1973; 7: 448–464.
[40] Hashin Z. Failure criteria for unidirectional fiber composites. J Appl Mech 1980; 47:
329–334.
[41] Wu EM and Reuter R., Jr Crack extension in fiberglass reinforced plastics. Illinois, IL:
Department of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Illinois University at
Urbana, 1965.