Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Composites: Part A
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesa
Review
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Available online 9 September 2015
Keyword:
B. Mechanical properties
a b s t r a c t
Recently, there has been a rapid growth in research and innovation in the natural fibre composite (NFC)
area. Interest is warranted due to the advantages of these materials compared to others, such as synthetic
fibre composites, including low environmental impact and low cost and support their potential across a
wide range of applications. Much effort has gone into increasing their mechanical performance to extend
the capabilities and applications of this group of materials. This review aims to provide an overview of the
factors that affect the mechanical performance of NFCs and details achievements made with them.
2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Factors affecting mechanical performance of NFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
2.1.
Fibre selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
2.2.
Matrix selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
2.3.
Interface strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
2.4.
Fibre dispersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
2.5.
Fibre orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
2.6.
Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
2.7.
Porosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Mechanical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Hybridisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Influence of moisture/weathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
1. Introduction
Interest in NFCs is growing for many reasons including their
potential to replace synthetic fibre reinforced plastics at lower cost
with improved sustainability; their advantages and disadvantages
are summarised in Table 1 [1].
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.08.038
1359-835X/ 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
99
Disadvantages
Details of the influence of these factors, the mechanical properties obtained and their applications form the basis for the rest of
this paper.
2. Factors affecting mechanical performance of NFCs
2.1. Fibre selection
Fibre type is commonly categorised based on its origin: plant,
animal or mineral. All plant fibres contain cellulose as their major
structural component, whereas animal fibres mainly consist of protein. Although mineral-based natural fibres exist within the asbestos group of minerals and were once used extensively in
composites, these are now avoided due to associated health issues
(carcinogenic through inhalation/ingestion) and are banned in
many countries. Generally, much higher strengths and stiffnesses
are obtainable with the higher performance plant fibres than the
readily available animal fibres. An exception to this is silk, which
can have very high strength, but is relatively expensive, has lower
stiffness and is less readily available [6]. This makes plant-based
fibres the most suitable for use in composites with structural
requirements and therefore the focus of this review. Furthermore,
plant fibre can suitably be grown in many countries and can be
harvested after short periods.
Table 2 shows properties of some natural fibres and the main
type of glass fibre (E-glass). It can be seen that flax, hemp and
ramie fibre are amongst the cellulose-based natural fibres having
the highest specific Youngs moduli and tensile strengths although
it should be stated that much variability is seen within the literature. Commonly, geography relating to fibre availability plays a
major role in fibre selection [7]. The focus, for example in Europe
has been on flax fibre, whereas hemp, jute, ramie, kenaf and sisal
have been of greater interest in Asia. Harakeke fibre, (Phormium
tenax commonly known as New Zealand flax) is also being considered to be used in structural applications in New Zealand due to its
good mechanical properties and its local availability there.
Generally, higher performance is achieved with varieties having
higher cellulose content and with cellulose microfibrils aligned
more in the fibre direction which tends to occur in bast fibres
(e.g. flax, hemp, kenaf, jute and ramie) that have higher structural
requirements in providing support for the stalk of the plant. The
properties of natural fibres vary considerably depending on chemical composition and structure, which relate to fibre type as well as
growing conditions, harvesting time, extraction method, treatment
and storage procedures. Strength has been seen to reduce by 15%
over 5 days after optimum harvest time [16] and manually
extracted flax fibres have been found to have strength 20% higher
than those extracted mechanically [12]. Strength and stiffness of
natural fibres are generally lower than glass fibre, although stiffnesses can be achieved with natural fibres comparable to those
achieved with glass fibre. However, the specific properties compare more favourably; specific Youngs modulus can be higher
for natural fibres and specific tensile strength can compare well
with lower strength E-glass fibres.
When comparing data from different sources, it should be considered that a number of variables that are not always reported
have an influence on fibre properties. These include testing speed,
gauge length, moisture content and temperature. Generally
strength increases with increasing moisture content and decreases
as temperature increases; the Youngs modulus decreases with
moisture content [25]. Sometimes it is also unclear in the literature
as to whether the tests have been conducted on single fibres (single cells) or on fibre bundles (sometimes referred to as technical
fibres). Calculation of properties is generally based on the total
cross-section of a fibre or fibre bundle, however, single fibres have
a central hollow lumen which takes up a significant proportion of
the cross-sectional area. The fraction of cross-sectional area taken
up by the lumen has been found to be, for example, 27.2%, 6.8% and
34.0% for sisal, flax and jute respectively [26] and so it could be
considered that measurements of strength and stiffness obtained
not taking this into account are underestimations to the same
degree. The lumen area fraction for harakeke has been found to
be 41% which based on an apparent strength of 778 MPa obtained
for the fibre neglecting the lumen, suggests a true fibre strength of
1308 MPa [14]. It should also be kept in mind when predicting
composite properties that fibre properties vary with direction
Table 2
Mechanical properties of natural and synthetic fibre [624].
Fibre
Density
(g/cm3)
Length
(mm)
Failure strain
(%)
Tensile strength
(MPa)
Stiffness/Youngs
modulus (GPa)
Ramie
Flax
Hemp
Jute
Harakeke
Sisal
Alfa
Cotton
Coir
SilkFeather
Wool
E-glass
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.31.5
1.3
1.31.5
1.4
1.51.6
1.2
1.3
0.9
1.3
2.5
9001200
5900
555
1.5120
45
900
350
1060
20150
Continuous
1030
38152
Continuous
2.03.8
1.23.2
1.6
1.51.8
4.25.8
2.02.5
1.52.4
3.010
1530
1560
6.9
13.235
2.5
400938
3451830
5501110
393800
440990
507855
188308
287800
131220
1001500
100203
50315
20003000
44128
2780
5870
1055
1433
9.428
1825
5.513
46
525
310
2.35
70
270620
2301220
370740
300610
338761
362610
134220
190530
110180
1001500
112226
38242
8001400
2985
1853
3947
7.139
1125
6.720
1318
3.78.4
3.35
420
3.311
1.83.8
29
100
relative to the fibre axis, although not surprisingly given the experimental challenge, there is only limited information on transverse
data available. The longitudinal Youngs modulus for jute has been
estimated to be seven times that for the transverse Youngs
modulus [27].
As would be expected given that the fibres are normally stronger and stiffer than the matrix, strength and stiffness of the composite are generally seen to increase with increased fibre content.
However, this relies on having reasonable fibre/matrix interfacial
strength, and strength can reduce with strongly hydrophobic
matrices such as polypropylene (PP) with increasing fibre content
unless coupling agents or some other interfacial engineering
method is used; regardless, Youngs modulus still generally
increases with fibre content but more modestly than when the
interface is not optimised [28].
When reasonable interfacial strength is established, composite
strength commonly peaks with fibre contents of 4055 m% for
injection moulded thermoplastic matrix composites with reduction at higher contents explained as being due to poor wetting
leading to reduced stress transfer across the fibrematrix interface
and increasing porosity (see section on porosity below). Stiffness
has been found to increase up to higher fibre contents of around
5565 m% with similar materials, possibly due to less dependency
on interfacial strength than composite strength [14,2830]. Further insight has been provided by work investigating the influence
of fibre content in terms of weight fraction on porosity and volume
fraction of fibre. This has shown that maximum volume fractions of
fibre occur around fibre contents of 5060 m% with further addition of fibre resulting in higher porosity rather than increased fibre
volume fraction, the influence of which has been incorporated into
rule of mixtures models and shown to improve accuracy of prediction for stiffness and strength [27,30,31].
As well as being an issue for short term composite properties,
high fibre volume fractions are also of concern due to the potential
for increased water uptake leading to degradation of longer term
properties. It has been reported that hemp fibre reinforced PP composites with a fibre volume fraction of 0.7 absorbed almost 53 m%
water and had not reached saturation after 19 days, whereas only
7 m% water uptake was observed in composites with a fibre volume fraction of 0.3 and saturation had been achieved in the same
time period [32].
For composites containing fibres with failure strains lower than
that of the matrix (commonly the case for NFCs), basic composite
theory suggests that there should be a volume fraction of fibre
below which composite strength will be lower than that of the
matrix known as the critical volume fraction (Vcrit). From a fracture
mechanics perspective, below Vcrit, when the fibres fail, the matrix
can cope with load transferred from the failed fibres and the fibres
are acting merely as holes within the matrix. Critical volume fractions of fibre have been found to be 8.1% and 9.3% for jute and flax
respectively in unsaturated polyester (UP), much higher than values obtained for synthetic fibre composites, although lower than
fibre contents commonly studied in the literature and so this effect
is not observed often [33].
Fibre length, which can be incorporated into the aspect ratio for
a fibre (length/diameter), is an important factor influencing the
mechanical properties of composites. In a short fibre composite,
tensile load is transferred into a fibre from the matrix through
shear at the fibre/matrix interface. At the ends of the fibre, the tensile stress are zero and increase along the fibre length; therefore, a
fibre needs to have a length of greater than a critical length (Lc) in
order for the fibre to be able to be broken during tensile loading of
a composite [34]. At the critical length, just prior to fracture, the
fibre would theoretically only have been carrying half of the load
compared to that of a continuous fibre at the same composite
strain. Ideally, fibre length would be much greater than the critical
rf
Lc
d 2si
the potential to be the most easily recycled, which has seen them
most favoured in recent commercial uptake, whereas better realisation of the fibre properties are generally achieved using
thermosets.
Replacement of petroleum-based with bioderived matrices has
been explored. Of these, PLA is the clear front-runner from a
mechanical property perspective, and has been shown to give
higher strength and stiffness with natural fibres than PP [47].
2.3. Interface strength
Interfacial bonding between fibre and matrix plays a vital role
in determining the mechanical properties of composites. Since
stress is transferred between matrix and fibres across the interface,
good interfacial bonding is required to achieve optimum reinforcement, although, it is possible to have an interface that is too strong,
enabling crack propagation which can reduce toughness and
strength. However, for plant based fibre composites there is usually limited interaction between the hydrophilic fibres and matrices which are commonly hydrophobic leading to poor interfacial
bonding limiting mechanical performance as well as low moisture
resistance affecting long term properties. For bonding to occur,
fibre and matrix must be brought into intimate contact; wettability
can be regarded as an essential precursor to bonding. Insufficient
fibre wetting results in interfacial defects which can act as stress
concentrators [48]. Fibre wettability has been shown to affect the
toughness, tensile and flexural strength of composites [49]. Physical treatment and chemical treatment can improve the wettability
of the fibre and thus improve the interfacial strength [5052].
Interfacial bonding can occur by means of mechanisms of
mechanical interlocking, electrostatic bonding, chemical bonding
and inter-diffusion bonding [34]. Mechanical interlocking occurs
to a greater extent when the fibre surface is rough and increases
the interfacial shear strength, but has less influence on the transverse tensile strength. Electrostatic bonding only has significant
influence for metallic interfaces. Chemical bonding occurs when
there are chemical groups on the fibre surface and in the matrix
that can react to form bonds and as a consequence the resulting
interfacial strength depends on the type and density of the bonds.
Chemical bonding can be achieved through the use of a coupling
agent that acts as a bridge between the fibre and matrix. Interdiffusion bonding occurs when atoms and molecules of the fibre
and matrix interact at the interface. For polymer interfaces this
can involve polymer chains entanglement and depends on the
length of chains entangled, the degree of entanglement and number of chains per unit area. It should be noted that it is possible
for multiple types of bonding to occur at the same interface at
the same time [29].
Extensive research has been carried out in order to achieve
improved interfacial bonding in NFCs which can be largely divided
into physical and chemical approaches. Physical approaches
include corona, plasma, ultraviolet (UV), heat treatments electron
radiation and fibre beating. Corona treatment uses plasma generated by the application of a high voltage to sharp electrode tips
separated by quartz at low temperature and atmospheric pressure
and commonly includes the use of oxygen-containing species [17].
It has been shown to bring about chemical and physical changes of
fibres including increased surface polarity (thought to be due to
increased carboxyl and hydroxyl groups) and increased fibre
roughness but is known to be difficult to apply to threedimensional surfaces including fibres [53,54]. Gassan and
Gutowski have used corona plasma and UV to treat jute fibres
which were both found to increase the polarity of fibres but
decrease fibre strength leading to reduced composite strength with
corona treatment, but improvement of up to 30% flexural strength
of epoxy matrix composites with UV treatment [54]. Plasma
101
102
Fig. 2. Reaction of silane with natural fibre (R0 representing organic group, . . .
representing hydrogen bonding).
increase their tendency to agglomerate. Good fibre dispersion promotes good interfacial bonding, reducing voids by ensuring that
fibres are fully surrounded by the matrix [84]. Dispersion can be
influenced by processing parameters such as temperature and
pressure; additives such as stearic acid have been used in PP and
PE to modify dispersion as well as those used to increase interfacial
bonding such as MAPP which encourage fibre matrix interaction
[83]. Similarly, fibre modification through grafting can also be
employed, but is more expensive [83]. Although the use of more
intensive mixing processes such as using a twin-screw extruder
rather than a single screw extruder leads to better fibre dispersion,
this is generally at the cost of fibre damage and fibre lengths are
found to reduce dramatically during such processing depending
on temperature and screw configuration [61,83].
103
104
Fig. 3. Interaction of maleated polypropylene with natural fibre (. . .representing hydrogen bonding).
105
Fig. 4. Comparison of stiffness (tensile modulus), strength and specific stiffness (tensile modulus/density) and specific strength (strength/density) of NFCs (upper of paired
bars) with glass fibre reinforced plastics (lower of paired bars) reprinted from Materials and Design, 62, Darshil U. Shah, Natural fibre composites: Comprehensive Ashby-type
materials selection charts, 2131, 2014, with permission from Elsevier. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)
106
Table 3
Mechanical properties of natural fibre composites compared with regenerated cellulose composites and GFRPs.
Notes: Processing/length/
treatment
Reference
[57]
15
CM
[115]
20
15
RTM
RTM
Not stated
[116]
[116]
[106]
CM
Hand layup (knitted yarn)
Autoclave
RTM
Pultruded
[117]
[118]
[106]
[116]
[118]
RTM
Soxhlet extracted Vacuum
impregnated/CM
RTM (knitted yarn)
Alkali treated then bleached
Filament wound
Pultruded flax/PP yarn
Needle punched flax/PP mats CM
Dew retted, boiled, MAA-PP coupled
Wrap spun flax sliver/PP hybrid yarn,
CM
Wrap spun, short hemp/PP hybrid
yarn, CM
Emulsion PLA Prepreg CM
[118]
[107]
Alkali treated CM
CM
Wrap spun alkali treated short hemp
hybrid yarn, CM
CM
[67]
[111]
[91]
[89]
[109]
[118]
[93]
[105]
Alkali
Alkali
CM
Alkali
Alkali
Waikato
Waikato
[117]
Waikato
Waikato
Matrix
Fibre content
(m%)
Tensile
strength (MPa)
Stiffness/Youngs
modulus (GPa)
Flexural
strength (MPa)
Flexural
modulus (GPa)
Sisal (aligned)
Epoxy
73
410
320
27
Sisal (aligned)
Flax (aligned)
Harakeke
(aligned)
Harakeke
(aligned)
Sisal (aligned)
Sisal (aligned)
Flax (yarn)
(aligned)
Hemp (aligned)
Flax yarn (aligned)
Flax yarn (aligned)
Flax (aligned)
Flax hackled
(aligned)
Flax yarn (aligned)
Flax (sliver)
(aligned)
Flax yarn (aligned)
Alfa (aligned)
Flax yarn (aligned)
Flax yarn (aligned)
Flax (aligned)
Flax (aligned)
Flax sliver
(aligned)
Hemp (aligned)
Epoxy
Epoxy
Epoxy
77
46/54
50/55
330
280/279
223
10
35/39
17
290
22
223
14
Epoxy
52
211
Epoxy
Epoxy
Epoxy
48
37
45
211
183
Epoxy
Epoxy
Epoxy
Epoxy
Epoxy
65
31
45
37
28
165
160
133
132
VE
UP
24
58
248
304
24
30
UP
UP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
34
48
72
30
50
39
44
143
149
321
89/70
40
14
12
29
7/6
7
PP
46
Kenaf selected
(aligned)
Hemp (carded)
Kenaf (aligned)
Hemp (aligned)
PLA
80
223
PLA
PLA
PLA
30
40
30
17
15
28
15
311
25
180
190
218
9
15
18
182
20
198
15 (c)
17
88/115 (c)
751 (i)
212
146
23
15
127
11
23
254
22
83
82
77
11
8
10
143
126
101
7
7
7
9 (c)
14 (c)
19 (c)
10 (c)
Kenaf (aligned)
PHB
40
70
101
Flax sliver
biaxial/major
axis
Epoxy
46
200
17
194
13
Flax (woven)
Flax yarn (woven)
Jute (woven)
Hemp (biaxial)
Epoxy
VE
UP
PLA
50
35
35
45
104
111
50
62
10
10
8
7
128
103
124
10
7
9
Harakeke (DSF)
Hemp (DSF)
Hemp (DSF)
Harakeke (DSF)
Hemp (DSF)
Epoxy
Epoxy
Epoxy
PLA
PLA
45
50
65
30
25
136
105
113
102
87
11
9
18
8
9
155
126
145
10
8
10
11 (c)
25 (c)
10 (c)
11 (c)
treated CM
treated CM
treated CM
treated CM
[57]
[108]
[14]
[118]
[11]
[27]
[92]
[119]
[100]
[104]
[104]
[120]
[111]
Fibre
Shellac
49
Harakeke
(random)
Flax (random)
PALF (random)
Wood BKP
Flax
Jute
Newsprint
Kraft
Hemp
Kenaf (random)
Flax
Flax (random)
Epoxy
45
UP
UP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PLA
39
30
40
30
60
40
40
40
30
30
30
61
53
50
6
2
3
74
53
52
52
46
52
100
11
3
3
4
5
5
8
Flax (random)
PLLA
30
99
Hemp (random)
PLA
47
Cellulose
(continuous)
Cordenkaa
Cordenkaa
Lyocella (carded)
Cordenkaa
Lyocella (carded)
BioEpoxy
PA
PP
PLA
PLA
PHB
E-glass
(unidirectional)
E-glass (aligned)
E-glass (aligned)
E-glass (woven)
E-glass (CSM)
E-glass (CSM)
109
10
[98]
188
91
80
78
74b
112
94
90
86
58
60
5
3
3
12
4
4
4
4
5
13 (c)
24 (c)
40 (i)
22c (c)
195 (i)
200 (i)
235 (i)
210 (i)
39 (i)
18 (c)
[121]
RTM
CM
MAPP coupled IM
MAPP coupled IM
MAPP coupled IM
MAPP coupled IM
MAPP coupled IM
MAPP coupled IM
CM
IM
Dew retted Stripped/combed
(strength 1339 MPa) Film stacking
Dew retted, stripped, combed
(strength 1339 MPa) Film stacking
[93]
[43]
[122]
[123]
[124]
[125]
[125]
[125]
[126]
[71]
[97]
[97]
55
113
92
727
27
26 (c)
RTM
[128]
30
42
30
25
30
120
90
89
108
66
6
4
9
4
5
148
105
87
52
70
70
IM
MAPP coupled IM
CM
IM
CM
[129]
[130]
[111]
[130]
[111]
VE
60
905
39
UP
Epoxy
VE
Epoxy
UP
60
41
59
3840
47
695
31
483
33
201
13
[127]
(c)
(c)
(c)
(c)
[118]
450
21
250
278
9
11
CM
Pultruded
107 (c)
RTM
[107]
[118]
[118]
[121]
[93]
Flax (short-non
woven)
107
108
to sea water have been seen to be slower than for exposure to distilled water, suggested to be due to NaCl ions migrating to fibre
surfaces [139]. Reduced diffusion of sea water relative to distilled
water in composites is further supported by work with jute and
glass UP composites [140].
Although the presence of natural fibres is generally considered
to increase moisture absorption of polymers, benefit of inclusion of
natural fibres in glass fibre reinforced thermoset composites has
been found for prolonged moisture exposure; although degradation rate with jute fibres was found to be faster for times of less
than 70 h, above this time, jute was found to reduce degradation
rate. This has been explained as the swollen jute fibre layers being
able to accommodate the resin swelling strain or just acting as protection to a central glass fibre layer [141]. In this same research,
although silane coupling was found to improve flexural strength,
the benefit was lost after nearly 12 days in boiling water.
Weathering has, however, highlighted the benefit of natural
fibres. Assessment of mechanical and thermal stability of date
palm leaf fibres in PP composites containing UV stabiliser exposed
to natural weathering conditions in Saudi Arabia and accelerated
weathering conditions utilising UV wavelengths between 300
and 400 nm at 50% humidity, has shown the composites to be more
stable than PP without natural fibre for natural and accelerated
weathering conditions, although MAPP was found to reduce stability [142]. It was suggested that lignin acting as a natural antioxidant and it darkening on exposure, increases protection from UV,
as well as enhanced adhesion due to oxidation of the matrix provided stability in the composites.
6. Applications
Over the last couple of decades, increasing numbers of car models, first in Europe encouraged by government legislation and then
in North America, have featured natural fibre-reinforced polymers
in door panels, package trays, hat racks, instruments panels, internal engine covers, sun visors, boot liners, oil/air filters progressing
to more structurally demanding components such as seat backs
and exterior underfloor panelling. Now, all of the main international automotive manufactures use these materials and their
use is expected to increase in this area [47]. In India composite
board has been developed as an alternative to medium density
fibreboard which has been assessed for use in railcars [17]. The aircraft industry has also been adopting NFCs for interior panelling
[96]. They have been used in applications as diverse as toys, funeral
articles, packaging, marine railings and cases for electronic devices
such as laptops and mobile phones as a replacement for synthetic
fibre [96]. In sports, surfing appears to be of particular note with
respect to embracing environmentally friendly materials. A number of companies are now advertising surfboards incorporating
NFCs. One of the earliest was the Ecoboard produced by Laminations Ltd, using bio-based resin and hemp fibre [17]. A recent study
supported the production of natural fibre surfboard fins through
RTM to be possible regarding provision of mechanical performance
and economic viability [143]. Fishing rods are also being produced
using material developed by CelluComp Ltd who extract nanocellulose from root vegetables [17,144]. Recent research showing RTM
flax reinforced polyester turbine blades to be a potential replacement for those reinforced with glass fibre obtained recognition
by way of the Asia 2013 Innovation Award from the JEC composites
group for the worlds first functional flax composite wind turbine
blade [145]. Research has also shown the potential of NFCs for
top-plates of string musical instruments [146].
In the construction industry, wood fibre/PP or fibre/PE has
been used extensively in decking, particularly in the USA. Natural
fibre reinforced composites have also been gaining popularity in
109
110
[9] Dittenber DB, GangaRao HVS. Critical review of recent publications on use of
natural composites in infrastructure. Composites Part A 2011;43(8):141929.
[10] Zini E, Scandola M. Green composites: an overview. Polym Compos 2011;32
(12):190515.
[11] Brahim SB, Cheikh RB. Influence of fibre orientation and volume fraction on
the tensile properties of unidirectional Alfa-polyester composite. Compos Sci
Technol 2007;67(1):1407.
[12] Bos HL, Van den Oever MJA, Peters O. Tensile and compressive properties of
flax fibres for natural fibre reinforced composites. J Mater Sci 2002;37
(8):168392.
[13] Reddy N, Jiang QR, Yang YQ. Biocompatible natural silk fibers from Argema
mittrei. J Biobased Mater Bioenergy 2012;6(5):55863.
[14] Le MT, Pickering KL. The potential of harakeke fibre as reinforcement in
polymer matrix composites including modelling of long harakeke fibre
composite strength. Composites Part A 2015;76:4453.
[15] Carr DJ, Cruthers NM, Laing RM, Niven BE. Fibers from three cultivars of New
Zealand flax (Phormium tenax). Text Res J 2005;75(2):938.
[16] Pickering K, Beckermann G, Alam S, Foreman N. Optimising industrial hemp
fibre for composites. Composites Part A 2007;38(2):4618.
[17] Pickering
K.
Properties
and
performance
of
natural-fibre
composites. Cambridge, England: Woodhead Publishing; 2008.
[18] Cheng S, Lau K-t, Liu T, Zhao Y, Lam P-M, Yin Y. Mechanical and thermal
properties of chicken feather fiber/PLA green composites. Composites Part B
2009;40(7):6504.
[19] Huson MG, Bedson JB, Phair NL, Turner PS. Intrinsic strength of wool fibres.
Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2000;13:267.
[20] Gashti MP, Gashti MP. Effect of colloidal dispersion of clay on some properties
of wool fiber. J Dispersion Sci Technol 2013;34(6):8538.
[21] Niu M, Liu X, Dai J, Hou W, Wei L, Xu B. Molecular structure and properties of
wool fiber surface-grafted with nano-antibacterial materials. Spectrochim
Acta Part A Mol Biomol Spectrosc 2012;86:28993.
[22] Zhan M, Wool RP. Mechanical properties of chicken feather fibers. Polym
Compos 2011;32(6):93744.
[23] Efendy MGA, Pickering KL. Comparison of harakeke with hemp fibre as a
potential reinforcement in composites. Composites Part A 2014;67:25967.
[24] Cheung HY, Ho MP, Lau KT, Cardona F, Hui D. Natural fibre-reinforced
composites for bioengineering and environmental engineering applications.
Composites Part B 2009;40(7):65563.
[25] Charlet K, Baley C, Morvan C, Jernot JP, Gomina M, Breard J. Characteristics of
Hermes flax fibres as a function of their location in the stem and properties of
the derived unidirectional composites. Composites Part A 2007;38
(8):191221.
[26] Li Y, Ma H, Shen Y, Li Q, Zheng Z. Effects of resin inside fiber lumen on the
mechanical properties of sisal fiber reinforced composites. Compos Sci
Technol 2015;108:3240.
[27] Madsen B, Lilholt H. Physical and mechanical properties of unidirectional
plant fibre composites an evaluation of the influence of porosity. Compos
Sci Technol 2003;63(9):126572.
[28] Beg MDH. The improvement of interfacial bonding, weathering and recycling
of wood fibre reinforced polypropylene composites. PhD thesis. Hamilton,
New Zealand: University of Waikato; 2007.
[29] Beckermann G. Performance of hemp-fibre reinforced polypropylene
composite materials. PhD thesis. Hamilton, New Zealand: University of
Waikato; 2007.
[30] Madsen B, Thygesen A, Lilholt H. Plant fibre composites porosity and
stiffness. Compos Sci Technol 2009;69(78):105769.
[31] Madsen B, Thygesen A, Lilholt H. Plant fibre composites porosity and
volumetric interaction. Compos Sci Technol 2007;67(78):1584600.
[32] Hargitai H, Rcz I, Anandjiwala RD. Development of hemp fiber reinforced
polypropylene composites. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2008;21(2):16574.
[33] Shah DU, Schubel PJ, Licence P, Clifford MJ. Determining the minimum,
critical and maximum fibre content for twisted yarn reinforced plant fibre
composites. Compos Sci Technol 2012;72(15):190917.
[34] Matthews FL, Rawlings RD. Composite materials: engineering and
science. Cambridge, England: Woodhead Publishing; 1999.
[35] Vallejos ME, Espinach FX, Julian F, Torres L, Vilaseca F, Mutje P.
Micromechanics of hemp strands in polypropylene composites. Compos Sci
Technol 2012;72(10):120913.
[36] Andersons J, Sparnins E, Joffe R. Stiffness and strength of flax fiber/polymer
matrix composites. Polym Compos 2006;27(2):2219.
[37] Huber T, Mussig J. Fibre matrix adhesion of natural fibres cotton, flax and
hemp in polymeric matrices analyzed with the single fibre fragmentation
test. Compos Interfaces 2008;15(23):33549.
[38] Sun ZY, Han HS, Dai GC. Mechanical properties of injection-molded natural
fiber-reinforced polypropylene composites: formulation and compounding
processes. J Reinf Plast Compos 2010;29(5):63750.
[39] Joffe R, Andersons J, Wallstrom L. Interfacial shear strength of flax fiber/
thermoset polymers estimated by fiber fragmentation tests. J Mater Sci
2005;40(910):27212.
[40] da Silva ILA, Bevitori AB, Lopes FPD, Monteiro SN. Pullout test of jute fiber to
evaluate the interface shear stress in polyester composites. In: Monteiro SN,
Verhulst DE, Anyalebechi PN, Pomykala JA, editors. EPD congress 2011.
Boston, MA: Wiley; 2011. p. 35965.
[41] Nando GB, Gupta BR. Short fibre-thermoplastic elastomer composites. In: De
SK, White JR, editors. Short fibre-polymer composites. Cambridge,
England: Woodhead Publishing; 1996. p. 84115.
111
[100] Van de Velde K, Kiekens P. Effect of material and process parameters on the
mechanical properties of unidirectional and multidirectional flax/
polypropylene composites. Compos Struct 2003;62(34):4438.
[101] van Voorn B, Smit HHG, Sinke RJ, de Klerk B. Natural fibre reinforced sheet
moulding compound. Composites Part A 2001;32(9):12719.
[102] Francucci G, Rodriguez ES, Vazquez A. Experimental study of the compaction
response of jute fabrics in liquid composite molding processes. J Compos
Mater 2012;46(2):15567.
[103] Shah DU. Natural fibre composites: comprehensive Ashby-type materials
selection charts. Mater Des 2014;62:2131.
[104] Zhang L, Miao M. Commingled natural fibre/polypropylene wrap spun yarns
for structured thermoplastic composites. Compos Sci Technol 2010;70
(1):1305.
[105] Baghaei B, Skrifvars M, Berglin L. Manufacture and characterisation of
thermoplastic composites made from PLA/hemp co-wrapped hybrid yarn
prepregs. Composites Part A 2013;50:93101.
[106] Van de Weyenberg I, Ivens J, De Coster A, Kino B, Baetens E, Verpoest I.
Influence of processing and chemical treatment of flax fibres on their
composites. Compos Sci Technol 2003;63(9):12416.
[107] Hughes M, Carpenter J, Hill C. Deformation and fracture behaviour of flax
fibre reinforced thermosetting polymer matrix composites. J Mater Sci
2007;42(7):2499511.
[108] Oksman K. High quality flax fibre composites manufactured by the resin
transfer moulding process. J Reinf Plast Compos 2001;20(7):6217.
[109] Phillips S, Baets J, Lessard L, Hubert P, Verpoest I. Characterization of flax/
epoxy prepregs before and after cure. J Reinf Plast Compos 2013;32
(11):77785.
[110] Yan ZL, Wang H, Lau KT, Pather S, Zhang JC, Lin G, et al. Reinforcement of
polypropylene with hemp fibres. Composites Part B 2013;46:2216.
[111] Graupner N, Mussig J. A comparison of the mechanical characteristics of
kenaf and lyocell fibre reinforced poly(lactic acid) (PLA) and poly(3hydroxybutyrate) (PHB) composites. Composites Part A 2011;42(12):20109.
[112] Roe PJ, Ansell MP. Jute-reinforced polyester composites. J Mater Sci 1985;20
(11):401520.
[113] Haque R, Saxena M, Shit SC, Asokan P. Fibre-matrix adhesion and properties
evaluation of sisal polymer composite. Fibers Polym 2015;16(1):14652.
[114] Mutasher SA, Poh A, Than AM, Law J. The effect of alkali treatment
mechanical properties of kenaf fiber epoxy composite. In: Sapuan SM,
Mustapha F, Majid DL, Leman Z, Ariff AHM, Ariffin MKA, et al., editors.
Composite science and technology, Pts 1 and 2; 2011. p. 19196.
[115] Newman RH, Le Guen MJ, Battley MA, Carpenter JEP. Failure mechanisms in
composites reinforced with unidirectional Phormium leaf fibre. Composites
Part A 2010;41(3):3539.
[116] Oksman K, Wallstrom L, Berglund LA, Toledo RD. Morphology and mechanical
properties of unidirectional sisal-epoxy composites. J Appl Polym Sci 2002;84
(13):235865.
[117] Islam MS, Pickering KL, Foreman NJ. Influence of alkali fiber treatment and
fiber processing on the mechanical properties of hemp/epoxy composites. J
Appl Polym Sci 2011;119(6):3696707.
[118] Goutianos S, Peijs T, Nystrom B, Skrifvars M. Development of flax fibre based
textile reinforcements for composite applications. Appl Compos Mater
2006;13(4):199215.
[119] Oksman K. Mechanical properties of natural fibre mat reinforced
thermoplastic. Appl Compos Mater 2000;7(56):40314.
[120] Ochi S. Mechanical properties of kenaf fibers and kenaf/PLA composites.
Mech Mater 2008;40(45):44652.
[121] Le Guen MJ, Newman RH. Pulped Phormium tenax leaf fibres as reinforcement
for epoxy composites. Composites Part A 2007;38(10):210915.
[122] Li HJ, Sain MM. High stiffness natural fiber-reinforced hybrid polypropylene
composites. Polym Plast Technol Eng 2003;42(5):85362.
[123] Snijder MHB, Bos HL. Reinforcement of polypropylene by annual plant fibers:
optimisation of the coupling agent efficiency. Compos Interfaces 2000;7
(2):6979.
[124] Rana AK, Mandal A, Mitra BC, Jacobson R, Rowell R, Banerjee AN. Short jute
fiber-reinforced polypropylene composites: effect of compatibilizer. J Appl
Polym Sci 1998;69(2):32938.
[125] Sain M, Suhara P, Law S, Bouilloux A. Interface modification and mechanical
properties of natural fiber-polyolefin composite products. J Reinf Plast
Compos 2005;24(2):12130.
[126] Zampaloni M, Pourboghrat F, Yankovich S, Rodgers B, Moore J, Drzal L, et al.
Kenaf natural fiber reinforced polypropylene composites: a discussion on
manufacturing problems and solutions. Composites Part A 2007;38
(6):156980.
[127] Hu R, Lim JK. Fabrication and mechanical properties of completely
biodegradable hemp fiber reinforced polylactic acid composites. J Compos
Mater 2007;41(13):165569.
[128] Felline F, Pappada S, Gennaro R, Passaro A. Resin transfer moulding of
composite panels with bio-based resins. SAMPE J 2013;49(3):204.
[129] Feldmann M, Bledzki AK. Bio-based polyamides reinforced with
cellulosic fibres processing and properties. Compos Sci Technol
2014;100:11320.
[130] Fink HP, Ganster J. Novel thermoplastic composites from commodity
polymers and man-made cellulose fibers. Macromol Symp 2006;244:10718.
[131] Bax B, Mssig J. Impact and tensile properties of PLA/Cordenka and PLA/flax
composites. Compos Sci Technol 2008;68(7):16017.
112