4.7 Article

Long-term tensile properties of natural fibre-reinforced polymer composites: Comparison of flax and glass fibres

Journal

COMPOSITES PART B-ENGINEERING
Volume 95, Issue -, Pages 82-95

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.03.079

Keywords

Fibres; Environmental degradation; Strength; Mechanical testing

Funding

  1. Penn State Harrisburg
  2. Dalhousie University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite of significant research on the mechanical properties of fibre-reinforced polymer composites made of natural fibres, long-term performance of the natural fibre composites against moisture and other environmental conditions is not well-known. In this paper, accelerated durability tests were conducted in order to investigate the long-term performance of flax fibre composites in comparison with glass fibre composites. A total of 490 tensile specimens were prepared and exposed to four different environmental conditions namely dry heat, water (distilled), salt water (3.5% by weight), and alkaline (pH = 12.5) solutions. The temperature of the solutions was controlled at 20, 50, and 60 degrees of Celsius (degrees C). Tensile tests were performed after 21, 42, 83, and 125 days exposure to the environmental conditions. Overall, the tensile strength of both flax and glass composites significantly decreased with increasing temperature and exposure time, however initial elastic modulus of both materials was not affected. Flax composites showed a bilinear stress strain behaviour and the secondary slope of the curve become slightly softer after the environmental conditionings, although glass composites almost retained their linear behaviour. In terms of tensile strength retention percentage, flax composites not only were not worse than glass composites but also they had even slightly better strength retention percentage. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available