Advertisement

Static and Dynamic Mechanical Properties of Eco-friendly Polymer Composites

  • Bernardo ZuccarelloEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Recently, eco-friendly polymer composites (biocomposites) have been increasingly applied in various fields of industrial production, e.g., automotive, civil constructions, nautical etc. Consequently, many research articles have been published in various high quality technical and scientific journals to contribute to the development of new materials characterized by low environmental impact along with low-cost, low-weight, and sufficient mechanical properties. Regarding the performance of the polymer composites that are reinforced by synthetic fibres, such composites have various limitations, primarily owing to the relatively low stiffness and strength of the natural fibres along with the limited fibre-matrix adhesion. Considering these limitations, several studies have been conducted to improve the mechanical properties of the natural fibres and of the fibre-matrix adhesion, as well as for the development of new manufacturing techniques that allow for the production of composites laminates with a higher mechanical performance than that of the typical short fibre biocomposites that are already used for non-structural applications, especially in the automotive field. These recent studies focus on the accurate analysis of the static and dynamic mechanical properties of such innovative materials, as well as the implementation of reliable theoretical models that can be applied in the design stage to predict their performance, by varying primary characteristic parameters such as fibre volume fraction, manufacturing technique, fibre orientation, and lamina lay-up. In this chapter, the mechanical properties, fibre-matrix adhesion, as well the more accurate micromechanical models proposed in literature, are reviewed and critically discussed to provide the reader with sufficient knowledge on the static and dynamic mechanical properties of biocomposites, and consequently, on their potential capacity to replace traditional materials such as metal and fiberglass.

References

  1. 1.
    Zuccarello B, Zingales M (2017) Toward high performance renewable agave reinforced biocomposite: optimization of fiber performance and fiber-matrix adhesion analysis. Compos B 122:109–120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zuccarello B, Scaffaro R (2017) Experimental analysis and micromechanical models of high performance renewable agave reinforced biocomposites. Compos Part B 119:141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herrera-Franco PJ, Valadez-Gonzalez A (2005) A study of the mechanical properties of short natural-fiber reinforced composites. Compos B 36:597–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sreekumar PA, Joseph K, Unnikrishnan G, Thomas S (2007) A comparative study on mechanical properties of sisal-leaf fiber reinforced polyester composites prepared by resin transfer and compression moulding techniques. Compos Sci Technol 67:453461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cirello A, Zuccarello B (2006) On the effects of a crack propagating toward the interface of a bimaterial system. Eng Fract Mech 73:1264–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murherjee PS, Satyananrayana KG (1987) Structure and properties of some vegetable fibres, part 1. Sisal fibres. J Mater Sci 19:3925–3934Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Belaadi A, Bezazi A, Bourchak M, Scarpa F, Boba K (2014) Novel extraction techniques, chemical and mechanical characterization of agave Americana L. natural fibres. Compos Part B 66:194–203Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chand N, Hashimi SAR (1993) Mechanical properties of sisal fibres at elevated temperatures. J Mater Sci 28:6724–6728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chan N, Verma S, Khazanchi AC (1989) SEM and strength characteristic of acetylated sisal fiber. J Mater Sci Lett 8:1307–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Silva FA, Chawla N, Filho RDT (2008) Tensile behavior of high performance natural (sisal) fibers. Compos Sci Technol 68:3438–3443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thomason JL, Carruthers J, Kelly J, Johnson G (2008) Fibre cross-section determination and variability in sisal and lax and its effects on fibre performance characterization. Compos Sci Technol 71:1008–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Belaadi A, Bezazi A, Bourchak M, Scarpa F, Zhu C (2008) Thermochemical and statistical mechanical properties of natural sisal fibres. Compos Part B 67:481–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaewkuk S, Sutapun W, Jarukmjorn K (2013) Effects of interfacial modification and fiber content on physical properties of sisal fiber/polypropylene composites. Compos Part B 45:544–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bisanda ETN, Ansell MO (1999) The effect of silane treatment on the mechanical and physical properties of sisal-epoxy composites. Compos Sci Technol 41:165–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joseph K, Thomas S, Pavithran C (1996) Effect of chemical treatment on the tensile properties of short sisal fiber-reinforced poly-ethylene composites. Polymer 37:5139–5149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singh B, Gupta M, Verma A (1996) Influence of fibre surface treatment on the properties of sisal-polyester composites. Polym Compos 17:910–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mylsamy K, Rajendran I (2011) Influence of alkali treatment and fibre length on mechanical properties of short agave fibre reinforced epoxy composites. Mater Des 32:4629–4640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim JT, Netravali AN (2010) Mercerization of sisal fibers: effect of tension on mechanical properties of sisal fiber and fiber-reinforced composites. Compos Part A 41:1245–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sood M, Dwivedi G (2017) Effect of fiber treatment on flexural properties of natural fiber reinforced composites: a review. Egyp J Pet  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpe.2017.11.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Furqan A, Heung SC, Myung KP (2015) A review: natural fiber composites selection in view of mechanical, light weight, and economic properties. Macromol Mater Eng 300:10–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li Y, Mai Y-W, Ye L (2000) Sisal fibre and its composites: a review of recent developments. Compos Sci Technol 60:2037–2055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Omrani E, Menezes PL, Rohatgi PK (2015) State of the art on tribological behavior of polymer matrix composites reinforced with natural fibers in the green materials world. Eng Sci Technol 21:165–175Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Koronis G, Silva A, Fontul M (2013) Green composites: a review of adequate materials for automotive applications. Compos Part B 44:120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nabi D, Jog JP (2017) Natural fiber polymer composites: a review. Adv Polym Technol 18(4):351–363Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ku H, Wang H, Pattarachaiyakoop N (2011) A review on the ensile properties of natural fiber reinforced polymer composites. Compos Part B 42:856–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jagadeesh D, Kanny K, Prashantha, K (2017) A review on research and development of green composites from plant protein-based polymers. Polym Compos 38:1505–1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bharath KK, Basavarajappa S (2015) Applications of biocomposite materials based on natural fibers from renewable resources: a review. Sci Eng Compos Mater 23:1–10Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ramesha M, Palanikumarb K, Hemachandra Reddy KK (2017) Plant fibre based bio-composites: sustainable and renewable green materials. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 79:558–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sharath Shekar HS, Ramachandra M (2018) Green composites: a review. Mater Today Proc 5:2518–2526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Benzait Z, Trabzon L (2018) A review of recent research on materials used in polymer-matrix composites for body armor application. J Compos Mater, pp 1–23  https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998318764002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sanjay MR, Madhu P, Jawaid M, Sentamaraikannan P, Senthil S, Pradeep S (2018) Characterization and properties of natural fiber polymer composites: a comprensive review. J Clean Prod 172:566–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Khan T, Sultan MTBH, Ariffin AH (2018) The challenges of natural fiber in manufacturing, material selection, and technology application: a review. J Reinf Plast Compos 37:770–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Layth M, Ansari NMN, Pua G, Jawaid M, Saiful Islam M (2015) A review on natural fiber reinforced polymer composite and its applications. Int J Polymer Sci, 15  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/243947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nunna S, Chandra PR, Shrivastava S, Jalan A (2012) A review on mechanical behaviour of natural fiber based hybrid composites. Reinf Palstics Compos 31(11):759–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zuccarello B, Marannano G, Mancino A (2018) Optimal manufacturing of high performance biocomposites reinforced by sisal fibers. Compos Struct 194:575–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mancino A, Marannano G, Zuccarello B (2017) Analisi del comportamento meccanico di diverse varietà di fibre di agave e dei relativi biocompositi ecosostenibili. In: Proceedings of the 46° Aias national congress 2017Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zuccarello B, Marannano G (2018) Random short fiber biocomposites: optimal manufacturing process and reliable theoretical models. Mater Des 149:87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zuccarello B, Mancino A, Marannano G (2017) Implementation of eco-sustainable biocomposite materials reinforced by optimized agave fibers. Struct Int Proc 8:526–538Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pantano A, Zuccarello B (2017) Numerical model for the characterization of biocomposites reinforced by sisal fibers. Struct Int Proc 8:517–525Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Di Landro L, Janszen G (2014) Composites with hemp reinforcement and bio-based epoxy matrix. Compos B Eng 67:220–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chang KH (2015) Development of a bio-based composite material from soybean oil and keratin fibers. J Polym Sci 95:1524–1538Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Haq M, Burgueño R, Mohanty AK, Misra M (2008) Hybrid bio-based composites from blends of unsaturated polyester and soybean oil reinforced with nanoclay and natural fibers. Compos Sci 68(15):3344–3351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Feldman M, Bledzki K (2014) Bio-based polyamides reinforced with cellulosic fibres—processing and properties. Compos Sci Technol 100:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Patel M, Marini L (2015) Life-cycle assessment of bio-based polymers and natural fiber composites. Wiley Online Publications.  https://doi.org/10.1002/3527600035
  45. 45.
    Satyanarayana KG, Arizaga GGC, Wypych F (2009) Biodegradable composites based on lignocellulosic fibers—an overview. Prog Polym Sci 34:982–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yan Libo, Kasal Bohumil, Huang Liang (2016) A review of recent research on the use of cellulosic fibers, their fibre fabric reinforced cementitious, geo-polymer and polymer composites in civil engineering. Compos B 92:94–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dicker MPM, Duckworth PF, Baker AB, Francois G, Hazard MK, Weaver PM (2014) Green composites: a review of material attributes and complementary applications. Compos Part A 56:280–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mohanty AK, Misra M, Drzal LT (2005) Natural fibers, biopolymers and biocomposites. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Faruk O, Bledzki AK, Fink HP, Sain M (2012) Biocomposites reinforced with natural fibers: 2000-2010. Progr Polim Sci 37:1552–1596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ramzy A, Beermann D, Steuernagel L, Meiners D, Ziegmann G (2014) Developing a new generation of sisal composite fibers for use in industrial application. Compos Part B 66:287–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Agarwal BD, Broutman LJ (1998) Analysis and performance of fiber composites. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Barbero EJ (1999) Introduction to composite materials design. Taylor & Francis, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Towo AN, Ansell MP (2008) Fatigue and evaluation and dynamic mechanical thermal analysis of sisal fibre-thermosetting resin composites. Compos Sci Technol 68:925–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Torres JP, Vandi LJ, Deidt M, Heitzmann MT (2017) The mechanical properties of natural fibre composite laminates: a statistical study. Compos Part A 98:99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Langhorst AE, Burkholder J, Long J, Thomas R, Kiziltas A, Mielewski D (2017) Blue-agave fiber-reinforced polypropylene composites for automotive applications. Bioresources 13:820–835Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Yan L, Hao M, Yiou S, Qian L, Zhuoyuan Z (2015) Effect of resin inside fiber lumen on the mechanical properties of sisal fiber reinforced composites. Compos Sci Technol 108:32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gomes A, Matsuo T, Goda K, Ohgi J (2007) Development and effect of alkali treatment on tensile properties of curaua fiber green composites. Compos Part A 38:1811–1820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Singh JIP, Dhawan V, Singh S, Jangid K (2017) Study of effect of surface treatment on mechanical properties of natural fiber reinforced composites. Mater Today 4:2793–2799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Fotouh A, Wolodko JD, Lipsett MG (2014) Fatigue of natural fiber thermoplastic composites. Compos B 62:175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bendigeri C, Jwalesh HN (2016) Review on fatigue behavior of polymeric biomaterials with natural fibers. Int J Adv Eng Res Sci 3(2):2349–6495Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Mortazavian S, Fatemi A (2017) Fatigue of short fiber thermoplastic composites: a review of recent experimental results analysis. Int J Fatigue 102:171–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mejri M, Toubal L, Cuillière JC, Francois V (2017) Fatigue life and residual strength of a short-natural-fiber-reinforced plastic vs. nylon. Compos B 110:429–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bravo A, Toubal L, Koffi D, Erchiqui F (2018) Gear fatigue life and thermomechanical behavior of novel green and bio-composite materials VS high-performance thermoplastics. Polym Testing 66:403–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Shahzad A, Isaac DH (2014) Fatigue properties of hemp and fiber composites. Polym Compos 35:1926–1934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Belkacemi C, Bezzazi B (2014) Quasi-static mechanical characterization and fatigue of a composites laminates. Adv Appl Sci Res 5(3):328–335Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Boughera B, Sawi IE, Fawaz Z, Maraghni F (2015) Investigation and modeling of the fatigue damage in natural fiber composites. In: TMS middle east—mediterranen materials congress on energy and infrastructure systems 2015, Doha, QatarGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Belaadi A, Bezazi A, Maache A, Scarpa F (2014) Fatigue in sisal fiber reinforced polyester composites: hysteresis and energy dissipation. Proc Eng Part B 74:325–328; 67:481-489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Mahboob Z, Bougherara H (2018) Fatigue of flax-epoxy and other plant fibre composites: critical review and analysis. Compos Part A 109:440–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Saman S, Sahrba MJ, Leman Z, Sultan MTH, Ishak MR, Cardona F (2016) Tension-compression fatigue behaviour of plain woven kena/Kevlar hybrid composites. BioResource 11(2):3575–3586Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Milanese AC, Cioffi MOH, Woorwald HJC (2012) Thermal and mechanical behavior of sisal/phenolic composites. Compos Part B 43:2843–2850 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Etaati A, Pather S, Fang Z, Wang H (2014) The study of fiber/matrix bond strength in short hemp polypropilene composites from dynamic mechanical analysis. Compos B 62:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Viale delle ScienzePalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations