| Literature DB >> 35406196 |
Siti Nadia Mohd Bakhori1, Mohamad Zaki Hassan1, Noremylia Mohd Bakhori1, Khairur Rijal Jamaludin1, Faizir Ramlie1, Mohd Yusof Md Daud1, Sa'ardin Abdul Aziz1.
Abstract
Natural and synthetic fibres have emerged in high demand due to their excellent properties. Natural fibres have good mechanical properties and are less expensive, making them a viable substitute for synthetic fibers. Owing to certain drawbacks such as their inconsistent quality and hydrophilic nature, researchers focused on incorporating these two fibres as an alternative to improve the limitations of the single fibre. This review focused on the interply hybridisation of natural and synthetic fibres into composites. Natural fibres and their classifications are discussed. The physical and mechanical properties of these hybrid composites have also been included. A full discussion of the mechanical properties of natural/synthetic fibre hybrid composites such as tensile, flexural, impact, and perforation resistance, as well as their failure modes, is highlighted. Furthermore, the applications and future directions of hybrid composites have been described in details.Entities:
Keywords: hybrid composites; natural fiber; synthetic fiber
Year: 2022 PMID: 35406196 PMCID: PMC9002485 DOI: 10.3390/polym14071322
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Classifications of natural fibers. Adapted from [16] with permission from Elsevier, 2022.
|
| Animal | Animal Hair | Wool, human hair, feather |
| Silk | |||
| Mineral | Asbestos | Amosite, crocidolite, Tremolite, Actinolite, Anthophyllite | |
| Plant | Bast Fibre | Flax, Ramie, Hemp | |
| Leaf Fibre | Sisal, Pineapple | ||
| Seed Fibre | Cotton | ||
| Fruit Fibre | Coir | ||
| Stalk Fibre | Rice |
The chemical composition of natural fibres. Data obtained from [25] Elsevier, 2021.
| Natural Fibre | Cellulose | Hemicellulose | Lignin | Ash | MC | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Banana | 60–65 | 6–8 | 5–10 | 2.7–10.2 | 10–15 | [ |
| Cotton | 89–96 | 2.3 | 0.2–0.5 | 0.6–1.5 | 0.5–0.8 | [ |
| Bamboo | 73.83 | 12.49 | 10.15 | 9.6 | 3.16 | [ |
| Bagasse | 55.2 | 16.8 | 25.3 | 1.5–5 | 8.8 | [ |
| Hemp | 68 | 15 | 10 | 0.8 | 6.2–12 | [ |
| Kenaf | 45–57 | 21.5 | 8–13 | - | - | [ |
| Pineapple | 70–80 | 18.8 | 12.7 | 0.9–1.2 | 11.8 | [ |
| Flax | 71 | 18.6–20.6 | 2.2 | - | 8–12 | [ |
Summary of natural fibre properties from researchers.
| Natural Fibre | Density (g/cm3) | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Elongation (%) | Elastic Modulus (GPa) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Banana | 1.35 | 529–914 | 2.6–5.9 | 27–32 | [ |
| Cotton | 1.51 | 400 | 3–10 | 12 | [ |
| Bamboo | 1.5 | 575 | 3 | 27 | [ |
| Bagasse | 1.25 | 290 | 2.11 | 11 | [ |
| Hemp | 1.47 | 690 | 2.38 | 70 | [ |
| Kenaf | 1.45 | 930 | 1.6 | 53 | [ |
| Pineapple | 1.5 | 900–1600 | 3.0 | 70–82 | [ |
| Flax | 1.4 | 1400 | 1.6 | 70 | [ |
| Jue | 1.5 | 393–1000 | 2.5 | 13–54 | [ |
| Sisal | 1.33–1.5 | 80–855 | 2.14 | 9–22 | [ |
The advantages and the disadvantages of fully green composites over conventional petrochemical-based composites [46] with permission from Faculty of Design and Technology of furniture and interior, 2017.
| Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|
| Renewable resources | Inhomogeneous structure of fibres |
| Lower production costs | Dimensional instability as a negative consequence of water absorption |
| Good specific mechanical properties | Lower water and thermal resistance |
| Lower density of composites | Susceptibility to microbial attacks and rotting |
| Reduced energy consumption during manufacturing | Insufficient adhesion and incompatibility with the polymer matrix |
| Biodegradability and eco-friendly materials | Degradation and aging |
| Lower risk to human health | Restricted processing temperature (to avoid thermal degradation) |
Properties of glass fiber, carbon fiber, and Kevlar. Adapted from [49] with permission from Chaoyang University of Technology, 2017.
| Synthetic | Density | Tensile Strength | Tensile Modulus | Elongation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aramid | 1.4 | 3000–3150 | 63–67 | 3.3–3.7 |
| Glass fiber | ||||
| E-glass | 2.5 | 2000–3500 | 70 | 2.5 |
| S-glass | 4570 | 86 | 2.8 | |
| Carbon fiber | 1.4 | 4000 | 230–240 | 1.4–1.8 |
Figure 1Hybrid configurations for continuous and discontinuous fibre reinforced composites: interply, intraply and intermingled adapted from [62] MDPI, 2022.
Thermal studies from several studies.
| Hybrid Fibre | Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA) | Differential Scanning Calorimetric | References | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Degradation Temperature IDT (°C) | Final Degradation Temperature | Final Residue | Tg | Td | ||
| Pennisetum purpureum/glass | 76.30–121.10 | 440–534 | 1.6–22.9 | 64 | [ | |
| Cocos nucifera/glass | 100–150 | 500 | 11–24 | 70–80 | 350–400 | [ |
| Sugar palm/glass | 299–340 | 360–400 | 7–16 | 82.50 | 80–130 | [ |
| Sugar palm/glass | 138–156 | 440–534 | 5 | [ | ||
| Jute/glass | 270–300 | 300–336 | 100 | [ | ||
| Kenaf/Carbon | 341334 | 315–390 | 13–54 | 100 | [ | |
| Kevlar/jute/flax/hemp/sisal | 210 | 340 | 30–51 | 90–105 | 400 | [ |
| Jute/Glass | 318–390 | 437–439 | 6–46 | [ | ||
| Flax/Carbon | 600 | 41 | 80 | 240 | [ | |
Research works reported on mechanical properties of natural-synthetic hybrid composites.
| Matrix | Fiber | Parametric | Tensile Strength | Tensile Modulus | Flexural Strength | Impact Strength | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Epoxy | Glass-Basalt/Flax/Jute | Fiber loading | 450 | 9.20 | 410 | - | [ |
| Epoxy | Banana/carbon | Hybridization | 277 | - | 307 | - | [ |
| Polyester | Kenaf/rGlass | Hybridization | - | - | 181.98 | - | [ |
| Epoxy | Kenaf/Aramide | Hybridization | 114.49 | 1.75 | - | - | [ |
| Polyester | Kenaf/Glass | Hybridization | 70 | 3.0 | 120 | - | [ |
| Epoxy | Palf/glass | Fiber loading | 52 | 2.10 | 120 | - | [ |
| Epoxy | Banana/Palf/Glass | Fiber loading | 132.29 | 11.52 | - | - | [ |
| Polyester | Glass/Jute | Fiber loading | 78.61 | 4.26 | 146.30 | 45 | [ |
| Epoxy | Aramide/Coir | Fiber loading | - | - | - | 149 | [ |
| Epoxy | Glass/Kenaf | Fiber loading | 175.68 | 1.72 | - | - | [ |
| Epoxy | PALF/Carbon | Fiber loading | 43.13 | 1.86 | - | - | [ |
| Epoxy | PALF/Glass | Fiber loading | 40.43 | 2.40 | 171 | - | [ |
| Epoxy | Jute/Carbon | Fiber loading, | 301 | - | - | 127 | [ |
| Epoxy | Jute/Carbon | Fiber loading | 257.60 | 9.80 | - | - | [ |
| Epoxy | Carbon/Jute/Banana | Fiber loading | 160 | 380 | - | - | [ |
| Epoxy | Aloevera/ | Hybridization | 123 | 210 | - | - | [ |
| Epoxy | PALF/Carbon | Fiber loading | 187.67 | 7.87 | 247.61 | - | [ |
| Epoxy | Kevlar/Aloe Vera/Bamboo | Fiber loading | 127 | 298.38 | 223.48 | - | [ |
| Epoxy | Date Palm /Kevlar | Fiber loading | 237 | 3.60 | - | - | [ |
Figure 2Tensile stress-strain curve of flax/carbon hybrid composite laminates (adapted with permission Elsevier, 2022) [109].
Figure 3The schematic diagram of izod and charpy impact test (adapted with permission Elsevier, 2022) [113].
Difference of Charpy and Izod Test adapted from [114] with permission from Akademia Baru, 2017.
| Type of Test | Izod | Charpy |
|---|---|---|
| Specimen Position | Vertical | Horizontal |
| Point of Strike | Upper tip of specimen | Point of notch but in opposite direction |
| Direction of Notch | Facing the striker that is fastened to the pendulum | Away from striker |
| Type of Notch | V-notch | V-notch and U-notch |
| Type of Hammer | Farming hammer | Ball in hammer |
Reported research on perforation resistance of hybrid composite laminates.
| References | Hybrid | Parameters | Low-Velocity Impact | Remarks | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peak Force | Energy Absorbed | ||||
| [ | Kevlar | Stacking sequence | 5.04 | 70.60 | Alternative stacking of basalt and Kevlar fabrics enhanced 15.58–20.79% and 13.47–20.47% improvement in the peak force and energy absorption. |
| [ | Kenaf | Clamping conditions | Natural frequency decreases with increasing impact level. | ||
| [ | Jute | Environmental conditions | 4.00 | 7.71 | Result exhibited a higher degree of strength retention after environmental aging, thus confirming the positive role played by basalt fibres in enhancing the durability of natural fibre composites |
| [ | E-glass | Fibre loading | 3.00 | 30.00 | Impact test showed a higher peak force while maximum deflection was governed by indentation test for hybrid and homogeneous composites |
| [ | Flax | Environment conditions | - | - | Did not exhibit such a large difference in impact behaviour between dry and conditioned |
| [ | Flax | Stacking sequence | - | - | The more complex structure presented by the hybrid, including two materials with different strength, is likely to reduce the extent of the striker rebound |
| [ | Carbon | Stacking sequence | 3.94 | 19.24 | Pipes with CGG stacking represents higher impact resistance while the GCG stacking has a better response of damage formation since this stacking does not show leakage damage. |
| [ | Kenaf | Fiber configurations | 4.00 | 30.00 | The bending stiffness of each fibre ply determines the penetration resistance of composite laminates. As a result, the inclusion of Kevlar fibre in the surface layers increased the laminates’ penetrating resistance. |
| [ | Aramid | Stacking sequence | 44.63 | 409.70 | The composites exhibited a larger effective displacement for complete penetration because of the visco-elastic-plastic behaviour of the polypropylene system |
| [ | Kenaf | Stacking sequence | 6.20 | 30.00 | Alternate sequence of hybrid composite exhibits more impact resistance |
| [ | Carbon | Stacking sequence | - | - | Composite with alternate sequence exhibit lower absorbed energy, higher penetration energy, smaller crack lengths, smaller indentation depths, smaller damage areas, lower temperature rise, and higher impact strength. |
| [ | Glass | hybridization | 2.60 | - | Impact peak force and displacement increase with energy level |
| [ | Carbon | Fiber configuration | 9.17 | 59.43 | Carbon fibre as the core exhibited superior impact resistance and weave fabric composite of basalt fibre laminates exhibited better energy absorption capability and deformation resistance |
| [ | Flax | Nanofiller enhancement | 2.00 | 13.18 | The value of absorbed energy for carbon/flac was higher compared to that of glass/flax due to |
| [ | Aluminium | Stacking sequence | 6.70 | 87.61 | Hybrid laminates shows 15% improvement of energy absorption and glass plies in H1 hybrid FMLs were able to distribute the contact stress, while the middle layer acted as a barrier in resisting crack propagation. |
| [ | Carbon | Stacking sequence | 5.80 | - | Compared to a non-hybrid flax composite of same thickness, flax plies on the affected side result in a considerable improvement in impact resistance |
| [ | Flax | Stacking sequence | 3.10 | - | Due to the interlaminar strength of the fibres, alternate layers of basalt and flax fibres suffered less damage. |
| [ | PALF | Stacking sequence/hybridization | 1.47 | 15.10 | Glass fibre was partially included into the composite laminates, which increased indentation resistance and energy absorption. |
| [ | Banana | Stacking sequence | 4.69 | 27.12 | The addition of glass fibre to a banana fibre reinforced composite improves energy absorption and overall impact performance. |
| [ | Kenaf | Fibre loading | 9.31 | 23.23 | The hybrid composites can endure up to 40 J of impact energy, with the peak impact load and absorbed energy increasing as the incident impact energy increased. |
| [ | Bamboo glass | Nanofiller | - | - | CNTs absorbed less energy than bamboo/glass hybrids without them, resulting in less physical damage. |
| [ | Flax | Fibre configuration | 2.41 | 19.94 | When compared to 5 carbon layers, the energy absorption of the hybrid composites rises by 13.25 percent for the FCFCF sample and 28.89 percent for the CFFFC sample. |
| [ | Jute | Stacking sequence | 5.60 | 46.89 | In comparison to composites with glass fabric layers in the inside and flax or jute textiles, hybrid composites with glass fabric layers on the exterior had greater impact resistance. |
| [ | Flax | Fibre loading | - | - | Hybridization of glass fibre onto flax fibre composite improves impact damage characteristics by generating a balanced effect. |
| [ | Jute | Impactor height | 0.22 | 4.20 | The dynamic reaction of these frameworks relies upon the flexible properties of the fibre material |
| [ | Bamboo | Hybridization | 6.10 | 27.92 | Increased filler loading reduced the severity of damage in non-hybrid composites, while the addition of woven glass fibre slowed the impactor’s penetration, lessening the risk of total failure. |
| [ | Oil palm EFB | Stacking sequence | 5.00 | 30.00 | The layering sequence K/OP/K in Kevlar/OPEFB hybrid composites can resist up to 35 J of impact energy, with the optimal gamma radiation dosage at 50 kGy |
| [ | Flax | Energy level, temperature, and number of impacts | 5.81 | - | Decreasing temperatures caused an embrittlement effect on neat PP composites with an increase maximum force and a decrease of maximum displacement, whereas increasing temperatures led to a softening of compatibilized composites with a decrease of maximum force and an increase maximum displacement |
| [ | CFRP | Fibre loading | 3.50 | - | Wood cells deform during impact and hence dissipate more energy |
Damage caused by impact load of hybrid composites.
| References | Hybrid Composite | Parameters | Failure Modes |
|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Kenaf | Fiber configuration | Microcracks, fiber pull out, fiber breakage, fiber bridging, debonding, and delamination at the interface. |
| [ | Flax | Hybridization | Matrix cracking, delamination, propagation and fibre failure |
| [ | Glass | Temperature exposure | The heat exposed specimen indicates the delaminated regions and/or fibre-matrix separation. |
| [ | Carbon | Fiber configuration | Matrix and fiber failure, ply failure, fiber pullout, delamination. |
| [ | Flax | Hybridization | Matrix cracking, delamination, fibre breakage and, finally, penetration |
| [ | Hemp | Fiber configuration | Localized buckling, fiber breakage, matrix cracking |
| [ | Flax | Matrix hybridization | Shows ductile response to |
| [ | Carbon | Fiber configuration | Fiber debonding, bending, fiber breakage |
| [ | Pennisetum purpureum | Environment | Matric cracking, delamination and fiber breakage. |
| [ | Flax | Environment conditions | Matrix cracking, delamination, fibre breakage, and fibre pull out. |
| [ | Hemp | Fiber configuration | Delamination, fiber fracture, matrix cracking |
| [ | PALF | Fiber configuration | Crack initiation and propagation, fiber pull-out, fiber- matrix delamination and fiber breakage were |
| [ | Basalt | Fiber configuration | Matrix cracking, delamination. |
| [ | Banana | Hybridization | Matric cracking, delamination and fiber breakage corresponds to delamination of the skin and brittle fracture of the core |
| [ | Kevlar | Fiber configuration | Delamination. The damaged area is increased with an increase in the glass fabric percentage. |
| [ | PALF | Fiber configuration | Matrix crack, fiber breakage. |
| [ | Carbon | Fiber configuration | Fiber matrix debonding and fiber breakage |
Figure 4SEM images of fracture surface morphology of plain flax composites failed under impact loading at different magnifications (a) fibre debonding and bending; (b) fibre breakage reproduced from [167] MDPI, 2019.
Figure 5Micro CT scan image of a flax composite specimen (3/4 of the impact hole) after an impact test, with a 50 J impact energy, showing different failure modes in the specimen reproduced from [169] MDPI, 2020.