CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 63 (2014) 45–48

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology

jou rnal homep age : ht t p: // ees .e lse vi er . com /ci r p/ def a ult . asp

Comparative impact assessment for flax fibre versus conventional glass

fibre reinforced composites: Are bio-based reinforcement materials the
way to go?
Joost R. Duflou (1)a,*, Deng Yelin a, Karel Van Acker b, Wim Dewulf (2)a
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, KU Leuven, Belgium
b
Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering, KU Leuven, Belgium

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In many applications the use of composite materials can offer significant weight reduction opportunities,
Lifecycle
which can have a positive influence on the life cycle impact of a component or system primarily through
Analysis
energy saving effects in the use phase. The impact associated with the production and end-of-life (EOL)
Bio-composite
phases, however, forms a possible counter indication for systematic replacement of conventional
structures by composite solutions.
Bio-composites are considered a promising strategy to limit production and EOL impact. In this paper
a comparative LCA study is presented for flax fibre reinforced composites based on PP on the one hand,
and functionally equivalent glass fibre reinforced PP composites on the other. The analysis results and
conclusions derived from a comparative attributional LCA study are summarised in this paper.
ß 2014 CIRP.

1. Introduction The results of a wide literature study with respect to the

mechanical properties achievable with different flax FRPs are
As part of the general trend towards increased energy efficiency summarised in Fig. 1. In this figure different categories are
of transportation systems, mass reduction is an important design distinguished according to the nature of the polymer matrix, the
objective. Offering good strength and stiffness properties for a structure of the flax fibre reinforcement and the applied
relatively low component weight, composite materials offer clear manufacturing method.
advantages in this context. However, the high production impact of While currently over 95% of PFRPs produced in the EU are used
the composing materials and the poor recyclability pose major for non-structural automotive components [2], the properties
problems in terms of environmental impact when the state-of-the-
art for conventional composites, such as carbon or glass fibre
reinforced epoxy, is considered [1].
As part of the efforts to overcome these deficiencies, the use of
renewable materials in composites is intensively investigated.
Plant fibre reinforced polymer composites (PFRPs) have recently
received substantial attention due to their potential for replacing
conventional fibre reinforced polymer composites, specifically
glass fibre reinforced polymer composites (GFRPs). It is forecasted
that by 2020 fibres derived from bio-based sources will represent
up to 28% of the total market of reinforcement materials [2]. Flax
fibre is the most widely used plant fibre for polymer reinforcement
due to its exceptional mechanical properties [3]. The wide
availability, low cost, low density, high specific properties and
the eco-friendly image of flax fibres have portrayed them as
prospective substitutes for the traditional composite reinforce-
ments, specifically E-glass [2]. Moreover, flax fibre is a combustible
resource leaving no slag after incineration.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 16 322845. Fig. 1. Mechanical properties for different categories of flax FRPs compared to
E-mail address: joost.duflou@mech.kuleuven.be (J.R. Duflou). GFRPs.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2014.03.061
0007-8506/ß 2014 CIRP.
46 J.R. Duflou et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 63 (2014) 45–48

summarised in Fig. 1 support the envisaged structural applications Table 1

Material mass indices (MImass) proportional to design weight.
of flax FRPs that are more recently being developed. In this context
the question can be raised whether the substitution of GFRPs by Shape Load Variable Mass index Mass index
PFRPs in general, and by flax FRPs in specific, would be an equal stiffness equal strength
environmentally benign decision. In order to answer this question Strut Tension Section area r r/ s
p/E
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
a systematic comparative LCA study has been conducted as Beam Bending Beam height p r =Effi
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi r/sp2/3
ffiffiffiffi
3
summarised in this article. Panel Bending Panel thickness r=E r= s

The recently developed modified generalised rule-of-mixture

2. LCA modelling approach
2.1. Goal and scope definition
The goal of this LCA study is to compare flax FRPs to
conventional GFRPs in a cradle to grave approach. Within the
scope of this paper this research question is limited to injection and
compression moulding as the predominantly used production
techniques for PFRP composite materials in Europe [4]. This limits
the considered polymer categories to thermoplastics. Being the
dominant thermoplastic matrix material, covering approximately
70% of the current European PFRP market [4], polypropylene (PP)
was chosen to represent this category.
Bio-based matrix materials are not considered here mainly due
to their high production cost and current negligible industrial
penetration, as well as the uncertainties concerning their technical
performance, e.g. due to their high water absorptivity and low
melting point or decomposition temperature [2].
The geographical boundary for this study was set to be within
Europe since the European automotive industry is currently the
strongest promoter for the application of plant FRPs. With France
being the dominant producer of flax fibres in Europe, flax
cultivation and fibre processing in France are modelled to
represent the general situation in Europe.
Two categories of applications were distinguished for the use
phase: dynamic ‘transport system’ applications, in which a change
in mass typically induces a change in energy consumption rate of
the system; and static applications characterised by insignificant
energy consumption in the use phase. In this analysis, the use
application in a transport system will be the main focus since static
systems can be regarded as a special case thereof with a negligible
environmental impact in the use phase.
Incineration with energy recovery is a logical scenario for
composite disposal. Coproduction of heat and power (CHP) was
selected as the mainstream technology in this context.
The ReCiPe midpoint (H) method was used to quantify the
impacts, using Ecoinvent 2.2 as primary data source.
As will be explained in the next paragraphs, the systematic use
of material specific mass indicators for functionally equivalent
structures and the derived Life cycle Environmental Indicator (LEI),
allow comparing the performance of different materials without
need for detailed dimensional specifications for the considered
structures. In order to assure an exact functional unit, the type of
transport system in which the component is to be used and the
functional lifetime of the system expressed as a total travel
distance however have to be specified. For this study the chosen
transport system is a gasoline car with an expected total travel
distance over the entire lifetime of 200,000 km.
2.2. Functional equivalence modelling
To maintain functional equivalence in this comparative study,
the Ashby method [5] was followed, assuring equal structural
properties for the design alternatives. Two widely used criteria for
equivalent performance in structural components are equal
stiffness and strength. The material mass indices outlined by
Ashby are summarised in Table 1. These mass indices, consisting of
only material intrinsic properties (density r and E or s (for tension:
tensile modulus and strength; for bending: bending modulus and
strength)) can be used to quantify the relative weight of a design
for a material under specified load conditions.
(ROM) model [2] provides formulas to calculate the tensile
modulus and strength of PFRPs in function of the mechanical
properties of the fibre and matrix materials, the respective volume
fractions and a series of coefficients taking into account the nature
and orientation of the fibre reinforcement. Since no pragmatic
theoretical model for the bending modulus/strength could be
identified, the tensile modulus and strength were used as proxies
for the bending properties in this analysis. Rodrı́guez et al. [6]
measured the bending and tensile moduli for various natural fibre
reinforced polymer composites. Their results show that the
deviations between the respective bending moduli and tensile
moduli are within 10%. For the bending strength a correction factor
of 1.5 was applied to the tensile strength in accordance with the
findings in [6].
2.3. Use phase modelling
The fuel-mass correlation in transportation systems can be
presented by the following equation [7]:
FC ¼ FRC  M þ B (1)
where FC is the fuel consumption (l/km); FRC stands for the fuel
consumption reduction coefficient (FRC) (expressed in l/(km kg))
determined by the rolling, gradient, and acceleration resistance; M
is the vehicle mass (kg); and B is a constant representing the
parasitic loss (l/km), which is strongly related to the aerodynamic
design.
Since the parasitic losses cannot be influenced by the
component mass Mc, the fuel consumption attributed to the
component FCc should be solely mass-induced and can be
formulated as
FC c ¼ FRC  Mc (2)
2.4. LCA model at component level
The impact that can be attributed to the composite component
in the different life cycle phases can be expressed as
P P F
j¼matrix; fibre M j  ðeEIi; j þ eEIi
EIiProd ¼ (3)
h proc
EIiUse ¼ FRC  M FRP  D  eEIWtW;i (4)
" #
X Mj M FRP
EIiEoL ¼ hnet  0:97   LHV j  eEIiprim þ
j h proc h proc
 eEIicomb (5)
Prod, Use, or EoL
where EIi equals the environmental impact in impact
category i during the respective life cycle stages; Mj is the mass of
the matrix or fibres in the product; hproc is the process efficiency;
eEIijP is the environmental impact in category i for the primary
production per kg material j; eEIiF is the environmental impact in
category i in composite fabrication per kg material input; MFRP
stands for the mass of the FRP component; D (km) represents the
expected travel distance over the entire lifetime of the specific
transport system; eEIWtW,i is the unit impact for category i per litre
of fuel from well-to-wheel; eEIiPrim is the unit impact in category i
for the substituted energy source per MJ; and eEIiComb stands for the
unit process impact for category i for incineration.
 J.R. Duflou et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 63 (2014) 45–48 47

Eq. (4) omits the environmental impact of maintenance in the Table 2

Production and end-of-life LCI data (mode values).
use phase because no current quantitative study allows for the
characterisation of the environmental impact associated with Process/input Unit Value Source
maintenance. However, several qualitative judgements show that Fibre cutting Wh kg1 output 86 [11]
little resources are needed for the maintenance of FRP-based Mat manufacturing [11]
structures due to their chemically stable polymeric matrix [9]. This Electricity kW h kg1 output 1.1
holds true for PFRPs as well. Therefore, for non-transport systems, Heat MJ kg1 output 8
Compounding [12]
EIiUse can be considered negligible.
Grinding Wh kg1 output 1.58
In Eq. (5), the applied LCA methodology assigns environmental Extrusion kW h kg1 output 0.35
credits for incineration with energy recovery by substituting Drying kW h kg1 output 0.04
primary energy production (electricity and heat). LHVj is the lower Granulating kW h kg1 output 0.07
Conveying Wh kg1 output 8.55
heating value of the matrix or fibre (MJ/kg). hnet denotes the net
Composite fabrication [13]
energy recovery efficiency in incineration, which is defined as the Injection moulding MJ/kg 11.2
ratio between the net generated energy (equal to the produced Compression moulding MJ/kg 11.4
energy from the waste minus the internally consumed energy) Combustion (LHV) [8]
over 0.97  LHV embodied in the waste input. The factor 0.97 Flax fibre MJ kg1 20
Glass fibre MJ kg1 1.7
adjusts for the usable energy from the incinerator.
PP MJ kg1 48.7
Combined heat power [14]
2.5. Environmental impact indicator for generic comparison energy recovery: net efficiency
Electricity % 11.3
Heat % 31.3
Defining eEIiProd, eEIiUse, and eEIiEOL as the environmental
impacts for category i per unit mass during the corresponding
life cycle stage, and calling upon the material mass index (MImass: Table 3
Specifications for the analysed flax FRP component types.
see Table 1), a life cycle environmental impact indicator (LEI) for
material comparison can be derived per impact category i, as Reinforcement Manufacturing Structure Volume
shown in Eq. (6): fraction (%)

Flax mat Compression moulding Panel 25–50

LEIi ¼ ½l  ðeEIiProd þ eEIiEoL Þ þ eEIiUse   MImass (6) Short flax fibre Injection moulding Strut 15–30

where l denotes the replacement ratio between flax FRP and GFRP
over the required functional lifetime (typically expressed as the
total travel distance of the transport system). Determining the
value of l is not evident due to a lack of experimental data. The
major factor limiting the durability of flax FRPs is their high
moisture absorption caused by the hydrophilic nature of bio-based
materials. This leads to fibre swelling and subsequently causes
dimensional instability and deterioration of the mechanical
properties of the composite [10]. Therefore, compared to GFRPs,
flax FRPs might exhibit a shorter service life, i.e. l > 1 is expected.
It should be noted that flax FRP components’ early failure could
also lead to premature end-of-life of the entire system, thus
causing additional impact not accounted for here.
The value of LEI is proportional to the life cycle environmental
impact a composite component design is causing and allows
comparison between material alternatives without the need for
detailed design specifications.
3. Life cycle inventory
4. LEI based impact comparison
The life cycle environmental indicator defined in Section 2 has
been used for comparison of GFRP and flax FRP design alternatives
under equal stiffness and equal strength conditions, respectively.
The design specifications are available in Table 3.
As input for the ROM model the following mechanical property
values were used for flax fibres (f) and the PP matrix (m):
Ef = 56 GPa and Em = 1.6 GPa [15]; sf = 500 MPa for flax mat and
850 MPa for short fibre [16].
Due to technological upper limits the dominant range of glass
fibre content is 15–20 vol% in GFRPs used for transport system
applications [17]. Two levels of volume fractions, 10 and 20 vol%,
have been selected for glass mat–PP and short glass fibre–PP
composites as references for the comparative analysis. The results
of this comparative study are summarised in Figs. 2 and 3 for the
global warming impact category.
From these results it can be concluded that, for compression
moulded parts under bending loads and with equal stiffness as

For the production processes covered in this inventory section,

only the manufacture of the flax fibre formats as required for the
composite production processes selected in the scope definition,
namely mat production and compounding, are covered. The LCI of
the precursor of these formats, flax hackled long fibres, is
comprehensively documented in Le Duigou et al. [11] and
therefore omitted from the inventory summarised in Table 2.
The LCI data of PP granules and PP film, which are used in the
injection moulding and compression moulding processes, respec-
tively, were found to be well documented in the Ecoinvent
database. Ecoinvent 2.2 was also used as the principal source for
the production of glass fibres and derived reinforcement formats
and for the underlying unit process datasets.
As density values for the flax fibre and PP, 1.5 g/cm3 and 0.95 g/
3
cm were used, respectively [3].
As input for the use phase assessment of dynamic systems the
FRC values for different transport systems can be found in [8]. In
Fig. 2. Comparison between flax mat–PP and glass mat–PP based on the LEI for the
support of the comparative analysis reported below, FRC values global warming impact category (CO2e kg1 g cm3 GPa1/3) for panels under
between 0.33  E4 and 0.65  E4 l/(kg km) were considered, bending load with equal stiffness as design criterion in function of the flax fibre
corresponding to the current range of gasoline driven cars. volume fraction, the FRC and the replacement factor l.
48 J.R. Duflou et al. / CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 63 (2014) 45–48
Fig. 3. Comparison between short flax fibre–PP and short glass fibre–PP based on
the LEI for the global warming impact category (CO2e kg1 g cm3 GPa1/3) for
struts under tension load with equal stiffness as design criterion in function of the
flax fibre volume fraction, the FRC and the replacement factor l.
design criterion, a global warming impact reduction can be expected
when replacing the glass fibre reinforcement by flax fibres, even for
higher replacement factors l and a high glass fibre content.
However, for injection moulded parts under tension loading a
sufficiently high fibre content is required to achieve breakeven with
the low glass fibre content reference (10 vol% glass) and the
replacement factor needs to be sufficiently low. For the high glass
fibre content reference (20 vol%) no breakeven level was found.
Fig. 4. Environmental impact comparison between flax and glass mat reinforced-PP
for panels under bending load (compression moulding).
Fig. 5. Environmental impact comparison between short flax and glass fibre
reinforced-PP for struts under tension load (injection moulding).
For the equal strength design criterion similar analyses were
conducted. Here the relatively low tensile and bending strength
properties of flax fibres result in systematically higher relative
impact scores for the flax fibre–PP composites in comparison to the
glass fibre–PP equivalent designs for the full considered design
window. Even at a replacement factor l = 1 and for the relatively
low glass fibre volume fraction of 10%, the LEI for global warming is
consistently higher than the reference designs.
For other impact categories similar analyses were conducted.
An overview of the obtained results is summarised in Figs. 4 and 5.
For this comparison a FRC value of 0.33  E4 l/(km kg) was used,
taking into account the dominant trend towards higher fuel
efficiency. Further l = 1, and fibre fractions of 15 vol% and 20 vol%
were used for short fibre and mat based production, respectively.
5. Conclusions
The obtained results clearly indicate that compared to glass fibres
the low mechanical strength of flax fibres obstructs a replacement
strategy for structural components. Targeting equal strength
equivalence in such cases typically results in increased environmen-
tal impact. Where stiffness is the main design criterion, flax FRPs can
offer a valid substitute on condition that sufficiently high volume
fractions of flax fibres are used and that the component lifetime is not
significantly shorter than for the GFRP equivalent. For compression
moulded parts under bending load a robust margin could be observed
making flax FRPs a clearly preferable choice from environmental
perspective. It should, however, be noted that for impact categories
linked to agricultural activities, such as land use and freshwater
ecotoxicity, the impact of flax FRPs is typically higher in all cases.
References
[1] Duflou JR, De Moor J, Verpoest I, Dewulf W (2009) Environmental Impact
Analysis of Composite Use in Car Manufacturing. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing
Technology 58(1):9–12.
[2] Shah D (2013) Developing Plant Fibre Composites for Structural Applications
by Optimising Composite Parameters: A Critical Review. Journal of Materials
Science 48(18):6083–6107.
[3] Yan L, Chouw N, Jayaraman K (2014) Flax Fibre and its Composites – A Review.
Composites Part B: Engineering 56:296–317.
[4] Carus M (2011) Bio-Composites: Technologies, Applications and Markets. 4th
International Conference on Sustainable Materials, Polymers and Composites,
Birmingham, UK, 6–7 July 2011.
[5] Ashby MF (2005) Materials Selection in Mechanical Design. MRS Bulletin
30(12):994–997.
[6] Rodrı́guez E, et al (2005) Characterization of Composites Based on Natural and
Glass Fibers Obtained by Vacuum Infusion. Journal of Composite Materials
39(3):265–282.
[7] Kim HC, Wallington TJ (2013) Life-Cycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission
Benefits of Lightweighting in Automobiles: Review and Harmonization. Envi-
ronmental Science & Technology 47(12):6089–6097.
[8] Duflou JR, Deng Y, Van Acker K, Dewulf W (2012) Do Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Composites Provide Environmentally Benign Alternatives? A Life-Cycle-As-
sessment-Based Study. MRS Bulletin 37(4):374–382.
[9] AVK (2010) Sustainability of Fibre-Reinforced Plastics – An Assessment based on
Selected
. Examples of Application, Industrievereinigung Verstarte Kunststoffe eV
[10] Stamboulis A, et al (2000) Environmental Durability of Flax Fibres and their
Composites based on Polypropylene Matrix. Applied Composite Materials 7(5–
6):273–294.
[11] Le Duigou A, Davies P, Baley C (2011) Environmental Impact Analysis of the
Production of Flax Fibres to be used as Composite Material Reinforcement.
Journal of Biobased Materials and Bioenergy 5(1):153–165.
[12] Thiriez A, Gutowski TG (2006) An Environmental Analysis of Injection Mold-
ing. IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, San
Francisco, CA, May 8–11, 195–200.
[13] Turner S (2005) European Benchmarking Survey of Energy Consumption and
Adsorption of Best Practicehttp://eaci-projects.eu.
[14] Reimann D (2006) Results of Specific Data for Energy, Efficiency Rates and
Coefficients, Plant Efficiency Factors and NCV of 97 European W-t-E Plants and
Determination of the Main Energy Results, CEWEP Energy Report (Status 2001–
2004)http://www.cewep.eu/.
[15] Bos HL, Mussig J, van den Oever MJA (2006) Mechanical Properties of Short-
Flax-Fibre Reinforced Compounds. Composites Part A – Applied Science and
Manufacturing 37(10):1591–1604.
[16] Bos HL, Van Den Oever MJA, Peters OCJJ (2002) Tensile and Compressive
Properties of Flax Fibres for Natural Fibre Reinforced Composites. Journal of
Materials Science 37(8):1683–1692.
[17] Rudd C (2002) Composites for Automotive Applications, iSmithers Rapra Pub-
lishing.