Industrial Crops & Products 135 (2019) 81–90

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Crops & Products

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indcrop

Influence of friction spun yarn and thermally bonded roving structures on T

the mechanical properties of Flax/Polypropylene composites
⁎
Mahadev Bar , R. Alagirusamy, Apurba Das
Department of Textile Technology, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The main objective of this work is to study the effect of composite architecture on the mechanical properties of
Bio-composites flax reinforced polypropylene (PP) composites. In this context, two different hybrid yarn structures using flax
Hybrid yarn and polypropylene (PP) fibres have been produced; one, through the friction spinning method and the other
Composite structure through thermal bonding of blended roving. The friction spun yarn (FSY) has a core-sheath type of yarn
Natural fibre
structure, whereas the thermally bonded roving (TBR) has a blended flax/ PP distribution in its structure. The
Twist-less yarn
Thermally bonded yarn
flax content in both yarn structures is varied at 40 wt. %, 50 wt. % and 60 wt. %, respectively. Further, these
hybrid yarns are consolidated to fabricate unidirectional composite samples and the resultant composites are
tested accordingly. It is observed that the tensile and flexural strengths of all composite specimens increase with
increasing flax content. While the impact strength of FSY-compressed composite decreases with increasing flax
content and in case of TBR-compressed composite, it increases with increasing flax content. At constant flax
content, the TBR-compressed composites demonstrate better tensile, flexural and impact properties than FSY-
compressed composites.

1. Introduction
Since last few decades, considerable interest has been observed in
the use of natural fibres as polymer composite reinforcement (Pickering
and Aruan, 2016a; Vinayagamoorthy, 2017; Yusoff et al., 2016). It is
mainly due to the advantages posed by the natural fibres over the
synthetic fibres such as lower density compared to glass fibre, abundant
availability at a reasonable price, less abrasiveness etc. (Liu et al., 2017;
Bar et al., 2015; Pickering et al., 2016b). In addition, the issues like
global warming, greenhouse gas emission and government’s norms re-
lated to solid waste disposal have bolstered the interest in natural fibre
as polymer composite reinforcement (Netravali and Chabba, 2003; Zini
and Scandola, 2011). As a result, the market size of natural fibre
composites (NFCs) is growing exponentially (Smeder and Liljedahl,
1996; EU Realignment, 2009). For instance, 315,000 tons of NFCs were
produced within the European Union in the year 2010 and is forecasted
to 830,000 tons by the year 2020 (Carus and Scholz, 2011).
Polymer matrices used for NFC manufacturing are broadly classified
into two categories namely thermoset polymer and thermoplastic
polymer. Thermoset polymers are non-biodegradable, non-recyclable
and promote the problems associated with global waste disposal
(Henshaw et al., 1996; Faruk et al., 2014]. However, some bio-de-
gradable thermoset polymer that doesn’t have the shortcomings as
mentioned above are there in the market but they have high cost and
limited availability (Terzopoulou et al., 2015; Blaker et al., 2011).
Hence, the current research attempts are made to develop NFCs using
thermoplastic polymers as matrix (Bar et al., 2017; Tanguy et al.,
2018). Existing natural fibre reinforced thermoplastic composites
(NFRTCs) have inferior mechanical properties which limit their po-
tential consumptions in different areas (Yusoff et al., 2016; Zini and
Scandola, 2011). Many factors influence the mechanical properties of
an NFRTC system, among those, poor fibre-matrix interaction, non-
uniform fibre-resin distribution and uncontrolled fibre orientation in
the composite structure are notable (Miao and Shan, 2011; Ogierman
and Kokot, 2016). Researchers have addressed the poor fibre-matrix
interaction problem and have achieved a remarkable improvement in
NFC properties (Väisänen et al., 2018; Zhou et al., 2016) while the
other factors have not been explored much.
Natural fibres as polymer composite reinforcement are used either
in randomly oriented form (such as short fibre, nonwoven mat etc.) or
in the form of structural preform (such as yarn, woven fabric, knitted
fabric, braid etc.) (Alagirusamy et al., 2006; Misnon et al., 2014).
Structural preform as composite reinforcement can control the fibre
orientation in the composite structure, which resulted in better me-
chanical properties of the structural preform reinforced composites
than the randomly distributed fibre reinforced composites (Yan et al.,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mahadevbar07@gmail.com (M. Bar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.04.025
Received 18 July 2018; Received in revised form 7 February 2019; Accepted 14 April 2019
Available online 22 April 2019
0926-6690/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Bar, et al.
2014). Natural fibres have short fibre length. Thus one has to convert
these natural fibres into a continuous yarn before structural preform
formation using textile processes such as weaving, knitting, braiding
etc. In a conventional yarn structure, twist holds its constituent fibres
together and enhances the yarn strength up to a certain level by en-
hancing fibre cohesion (Ma et al., 2014). While in case of polymer
composite, yarn twist reduces the potential fibre strength utilization to
the final composite due to obliquity effect and restricts the penetration
of high viscous thermoplastic resin into the reinforcing fibre bundles
(Bar et al., 2017). This results in a composite with inferior mechanical
properties due to the presence of high amount of voids. Use of hybrid
yarn during composite manufacturing can overcome these drawbacks.
In the context of thermoplastic composite, a hybrid yarn is a yarn in
which both the reinforcing and matrix forming fibres are present
(Alagirusamy et al., 2006). This unique yarn structure of a hybrid yarn
reduces the effective resin flow distance during thermoplastic compo-
site manufacturing and ultimately improve the fibre-resin distribution
in the composite structure (Baley et al., 2016). Researchers have de-
veloped natural fibre based hybrid yarn for thermoplastic composite
manufacturing through different techniques such as commingling
(George et al., 2012), micro-braiding (Khondker et al., 2006), wrap
spinning (Zhang and Miao, 2010), DREF spinning (Bar et al., 2017) etc.
It has been found that all these natural fibre based hybrid yarns im-
prove the fibre-resin distribution in the composite structures, but, the
natural fibres in these hybrid yarn structures remain twisted which is
not desirable for producing a strong NFC.
In our previous work (Bar et al., 2018), a set of friction spun hybrid
yarn has been produced using MAgPP treated high twisted (320 turns
per meter) and very low twisted (28 turns per meter) flax yarn as core
and PP as sheath respectively. These hybrid yarns are consolidated to
manufacture unidirectional (UD) composite samples and the resultant
composites are tested accordingly. It has been observed that low twisted
flax core based friction spun yarn compressed composites show better
mechanical properties than the high twisted flax core based friction
spun yarn compressed composites. It is mainly due to improved fibre-
resin distribution in the low twisted flax core based hybrid yarn com-
pressed composites than the twisted flax core based hybrid yarn com-
pressed composites. The argument mentioned above states that the
relative positioning and configurations of the reinforcing and matrix
forming fibres in the hybrid yarns play a vital role in determining
composite’s mechanical properties. To the best of authors’ knowledge,
mechanical properties of composites made with hybrid yarns having
different relative positioning and configurations of the reinforcing and
matrix forming fibres have not been reported in any published litera-
ture.
Hence in this present study, two different hybrid yarn structures
have been produced through friction spinning method and through the
thermal bonding of blended roving using flax and PP fibres. The friction
spun yarn has a core-sheath type yarn structure whereas in the ther-
mally bonded roving structure, the flax and PP fibres remain in a
Fig. 1. SEM images of (a) untreated flax fibres (b) MAgPP treated flax fibres.
82
Industrial Crops & Products 135 (2019) 81–90
blended state. Unidirectional composites with different composite ar-
chitectures are produced by consolidating both types of hybrid yarns
separately. Finally, the effects of flax content and composite archi-
tecture on the tensile, flexural and impact properties of the unidirec-
tional composite samples have been explored.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
In the present study, polypropylene (PP) fibres in sliver form and
flax fibres in yarn and sliver forms are chosen as matrix and re-
inforcement components respectively. PP sliver having a linear density
of 4 Ktex is supplied by M/s Zenith Fibre Ltd., Gujarat, India. Fully
drawn flax sliver having a linear density of 4 Ktex and flax yarn having
a linear density of 165 tex (1/10 Lea) and 320 turns per meter (TPM) is
procured from M/s Jayashree Textile Ltd. West Bengal, India. Fibres
present in the PP sliver have a melting temperature of 165 °C and a
staple length of 6 cm whereas the length of flax fibres present in the flax
sliver varies between 5 cm and 42 cm. The actual density of PP and flax
fibres are 0.9 g/cm3 and 1.5 g/cm3 respectively. Maleic Anhydride
Grafted Polypropylene (MAgPP) having Maleic Anhydride content be-
tween 1 and 1.5% is used as a coupling agent. It is procured from Pluss
Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, India.
2.2. MAgPP treatment of flax
It is observed in our previous work (Bar et al., 2018) that MAgPP
treated flax reinforced PP composites show better mechanical proper-
ties than untreated flax reinforced PP composites. Hence, the flax
samples (i.e. flax slivers and the low twisted flax yarns) that are used in
this present work are treated with MAgPP (5 wt. %). The MAgPP
treatment of flax yarns/slivers is carried out in hank form in a boiling
xylene medium at 140 °C for 5–7 min. After the treatment, flax hanks
are washed number of times with hot xylene at a temperature just
above 90 °C to remove the unfixed MAgPP from the flax surface. Fi-
nally, the washed flax samples are dried in an air oven at 110 OC for
overnight. The SEM images of the MAgPP treated and untreated flax
fibre surfaces are presented in Fig. 1. After the MAgPP treatment, lots of
micro-particles as well as some very thin films of MAgPP are observed
over the flax fibre surface. Existing literature states that MAgPP reacts
with different polar groups of flax through ester linkage formation
(Mohanty et al., 2000).
2.3. Thermally bonded roving (TBR) preparation
Flax-PP based TBR is produced in a specially designed machine
which mainly consists of a gill drawing unit and a thermal treatment
unit. The photographs of the gill drawing unit and the thermal treat-
ment unit are illustrated in Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 2(b) respectively. The
M. Bar, et al.
Fig. 2. Photographs of (a) gill drawing unit (b) thermal treatment unit (c) schematic diagram of the TBR cross-section.
drawing unit of the present machine is basically a conventional drawing
system used for bast fibre drawing. During TBR formation, the drawing
unit improves the degree of mixing of flax and PP fibres and also im-
proves their orientation towards the roving axis. The thermal treatment
unit of the present machine has three main parts namely condenser,
heater and temperature controller with a temperature sensor. The
condenser is heated from outside through a ring heater, tightly fitted
around the condenser. The temperature sensor is fixed at the outer
surface of the condenser and maintains the set temperature in the main
heating zone. When a flax-PP blended roving passes through the hot
condenser, the PP fibres present on the roving surface touch the hot
surface and get melted. As a result, a novel flax-PP based hybrid roving
structure is developed in which, the flax fibres are held together by
means of PP resin at the roving surface while the core remain un-
bonded. Fig. 2(c) shows a schematic diagram of the newly developed
roving cross-section. Unlike existing thermally bonded rovings/yarns,
the newly developed roving is flexible enough for structural prepreg
formation as its core remain unbonded. The mechanical and weave-
ability behavior of TBR have been assessed in our previous study (Bar
et al., 2019). In the present study, the flax content in TBR structures is
varied at three different levels i.e. 40 wt. %, 50 wt. % and 60 wt. %
respectively. In order to get a high degree of flax-PP mixing in the TBR
structure, the flax and PP slivers are drawn together for six times (no
significant improvement in the degree flax-PP fibre mixing is observed
after six drawing passages). After the 6th drawing passage the blended
sliver is subjected to a thermal treatment at 210 °C temperature for few
seconds. During TBR formation, the flax fibres do not degrade thermally
as the thermal exposure time is very short.
2.4. Friction spun yarn (FSY) preparation
The DREF or friction spinning system is an open-end spinning pro-
cess, was developed by Dr. E. Fehrer, in 1973. This process produces
core-sheath structure hybrid yarn at very high delivery rate and without
altering the feed core yarn twist. In the present work, a low twisted (28
TPM) flax yarn is used as core whereas PP is used as sheath. This low
twisted flax yarn is produced by untwisting the procured flax yarn
(having an average Z-twist of 320 TPM) in a laboratory scale ring
spinning frame. During FSY formation, this untwisted flax yarn is fed as
core to the yarn formation region while the PP slivers (sheath compo-
nents) are fed from the back side of the machine. After feeding, the PP
slivers are opened-up into individual fibre entity by a pinned beater and
are transferred to the yarn forming zone to wrap over the core flax yarn.
FSYs having different flax content i.e. 40 wt. %, 50 wt. % and 60 wt. %
respectively are manufactured after varying the PP sliver feed rate with
respect to the constant core yarn feed rate of 40 m/min. The produced
FSYs are not subjected to any thermal treatment as they already have
the sufficient strength for withstanding the stress applied during com-
posite formation. Moreover, the mechanical properties of a FSY com-
pressed composite do not affect by the thermal treatment of FSY. A
schematic diagram illustrating the formation of FSY is shown in
83
Industrial Crops & Products 135 (2019) 81–90
Fig. 3(a) and the Fig. 3(b) shows a cross-sectional image of the pro-
duced FSY whereas Fig. 3(c) shows a schematic diagram of FSY cross-
section.
2.5. Composite preparation
In the present work, two different types of unidirectional composites
with different composite architectures have been produced after con-
solidating the parallel laid TBR and parallel laid FSY separately in a
compression molding machine. The details of all hybrid yarn samples
used for unidirectional composite fabrication are presented in Table 1.
The unidirectional composite fabrication process involves the following
steps. Initially, the flax-PP based yarn/roving samples are wound in a
parallel configuration over a spring-loaded metallic frame in layer by
layer manner. The stacked yarn/roving bundles are then wrapped with
a thin PP film and subsequently tied with a PP filament as shown in
Fig. 4. After winding, the yarn/roving bundle is placed in the grove of
the female mould halve and subjected to hot compression after closing
the male mould halve. During hot compression, some resin comes out
from the mold through both open ends. In order to compensate the
volume of matrix squeeze out, corresponding volume of PP in film form
is pre-added. Hot compression is carried out for 5 min at 190 °C tem-
perature, 8 bar consolidation pressure and 8 bar vacuum pressure. After
curing, the whole set-up is cooled down to below 100 °C without re-
leasing the consolidation pressure. During cooling, the molten PP ma-
trix turns into a solid and holds the fibres in definite positions.
2.6. Testing of composite samples
The tensile and flexural behaviors of TBR-compressed and FSY-
compressed unidirectional composites are tested in a Zwick-Roell uni-
versal testing machine, Model no. Z052 with 50 K N load cell attach-
ment. The tensile properties of the composite samples are tested ac-
cording to ASTM D638 test method while the flexural behaviors are
tested according to ASTM D790 test method. Tensile testing is carried
out at 1 mm/ min test speed after clamping the composite sample over
an area of 40 mm × 20 mm at both ends leaving 100 mm gauge length.
The strain of all composite specimens along the loading direction is
measured using an extensometer, model no 3560-BIA-025M-010-ST
(Epsilon Technology Corp, Jackson, WY, USA) of 25 mm gauze length.
On other hand, flexural behavior of the composite specimens is tested at
2 mm/min test speed. Specimens for flexural tests have a nominal width
of 20 mm and a span length of 56 mm. Specimens for both the tensile
and flexural tests have a thickness between 3.3–3.7 mm and are cut in
the length of fibre orientation direction. The notch Izod impact beha-
vior of the composite samples is tested in an impact strength tester,
according to ASTM D256-97 test method. The specimens for notch Izod
impact test have a dimension of 64 mm × 12.7 mm × 3.5 ( ± 0.2) mm.
Before testing a V-shaped notch is engraved in all specimens using a
notch cutting machine on the shoulder side of 12.7 mm dimension of
the specimen or on the side parallel to the direction of the application of
M. Bar, et al. Industrial Crops & Products 135 (2019) 81–90

Fig. 3. (a) Schematic diagram of friction spun yarn formation (b) Flax-PP (50:50) based FSY cross-section (c) Schematic diagram of FSY cross-section.

molding pressure. The notch etched on the test specimens has a notch
angle of 45 ± 1° with a radius of curvature at the apex of 0.25
( ± 0.05) mm. The depth under the notch of the specimen is 10.2 mm.
All the tests are carried out at 27 ± 2 °C temperature and 65% RH.
Each reported value represents the average of five samples.

2.7. Scanning electron microscopy

Thermoplastic resin (PP) distribution in the composite structure is

studied using the scanning electron microscopic image of cryogenically
fractured composite surfaces. This study is carried out in the following
manner. Initially, unidirectional composite samples are kept in the li-
quid nitrogen for 1 h so that PP goes below its glass transition tem-
perature. The composite samples are then taken out of the liquid ni-
trogen and break immediately. A Small piece of the fractured composite
surface is placed over a metallic sample holder with the help of a
double-sided carbon tape and is subjected to a gold coating. After
coating, the samples are examined using a scanning electron micro-
Fig. 4. Photographs of hybrid yarn based UD-Composite fabrication.
scope (SEM ZEISS EVO 50) at an accelerating 5–10 AC voltage.
σc
%vm = %mm ×
2.8. Void content σm (2)

The void content of the flax fibre reinforced unidirectional compo- %vp = 1 − (%vf + %vm) (3)
site samples are determined using the following equations (Fernández
et al., 2016). Where, vf, vm and vp are the volume fraction of fibre matrix and void
respectively. σc, σm and σf are the densities of the composites, matrix
σc
%vf = %mf × and fibre respectively. mf, mm are the mass fraction of fibre and matrix
σf (1) respectively. The density of the composite samples and PP are measured

Table 1
Details of unidirectional composite specimens.
Sample Identity Yarn Parameters Composite parameters

Starting Components Flax : PP Ratios in yarn (Weight Flax Weight Fraction in Composite (%) PP Weight Fraction in Composite (%)
fraction)

TBR-40 Thermally Bonded Roving 40 : 60 40.8 ± 0.3 59.2 ± 0.3

TBR-50 Thermally Bonded Roving 50: 50 50.2 ± 0.4 49.8 ± 0.4
TBR-60 Thermally Bonded Roving 60: 40 60.9 ± 0.3 39.1 ± 0.3
FSY-40 Friction Spun Yarn 40 : 60 40.2 ± 0.2 59.8 ± 2
FSY-50 Friction Spun Yarn 50: 50 50.4 ± 0.5 49.6 ± 0.5
FSY-60 Friction Spun Yarn 60: 40 60.1 ± 0.4 39.9 ± 0.4

84
M. Bar, et al.
Fig. 5. Microscopic images of the (a) TBR-compressed composite cross-section (Flax: PP – 50:50) (b) FSY-compressed composite cross-section (Flax: PP – 50:50).
using a density gradient column having a density range of 0.86 g/cc and
1.30 g/cc. The density gradient column is prepared using sodium bro-
mide with water and isopropanol (Fredricks, 1995). The density of flax
fibres are measured using a density gradient column having a density
range of 1.30 g/cc and 1.60 g/cc which is made of pentachloroethane
and 2-chloro ethanol. The fibre mass fraction in the composite is ob-
tained by dissolving the PP in Decalin at 160 °C.
3. Results and discussions
The cross-sectional images of the TBR-compressed composites and
FSY-compressed composites are shown in Fig. 5. Referring to Fig. 5, flax
fibres and PP matrices are distributed evenly in the TBR-compressed
composite structure, almost in an inseparable state. Whereas, in FSY-
compressed composite structure, the flax fibre bundles are randomly
distributed in the PP matrices. It is mainly due to the difference in the
structures of the FSY and the TBR. The FSY has a core-sheath yarn
structure where the PP fibres remain on the surface. During FSY-com-
pressed composite formation, part of the PP matrix impregnates in the
flax fibre bundle and the rest of the matrices remain around the core
flax, which resulted in a composite structure with random fibre bundle
distribution. In contrast, the flax and PP fibres remain in an intimately
mixed state in the TBR structure and so in TBR-compressed composite
structure. Total six sets of unidirectional composites after consolidating
FSY and TBR having 60 wt. %, 50 wt. % and 40 wt. % flax as shown in
Table 1 have been produced in this present work. During consolidation
some volume of matrix squeezed out through the both open ends of the
mold which altered the fibre to matrix ratios in the composite. The
actual fibre weight fraction measured through PP dissolution method is
also reported in Table 1. The produced composite specimens are tested
for the tensile, flexural and Izod impact properties and the test results
are discussed below.
3.1. Tensile properties
The photographs of all tensile fractured composite ends are shown
in Fig. 6. One can observe that flax fibre bundles look like an island in
the sea of PP matrix at the tensile fractured end of the FSY-compressed
composite. The numbers of island increase with increasing flax content.
However, no such sea or island is observed in the tensile fractured ends
of TBR-compressed composites. In fact, the flax fibres are more visible
in the tensile fractured ends of the TBR-compressed composites. It is
mainly due to well-mixed flax-PP distribution in the TBR structure.
However, some PP rich regions are observed in the tensile fractured
ends of the TBR-compressed composites having 40 wt. % and 50 wt. %
flax respectively. This is due to uneven flax and PP distribution in the
TBR structure at higher PP content. PP has a shorter fibre length than
that of flax. During gill drawing, the movement of PP fibres is con-
trolled by the long length flax fibres. At lower flax content, the PP fibres
have a tendency to agglomerate due to lack of control on their move-
ment during gill drawing, which leads to uneven flax/PP distribution in
the TBR structure.
85
Industrial Crops & Products 135 (2019) 81–90
The SEM images of the cryogenically fractured FSY-compressed and
TBR-compressed composite ends are shown in Figs. 7 and 8 respec-
tively. Referring to Fig. 7, a well-defined fibre rich region (FRR) and
matrix rich region (MRR) are observed in all FSY-compressed composite
ends. The enlarged view of the FRR of the FSY-compressed composite
ends state that, the PP matrix penetrates in the low twisted flax yarn
bundles. The flax fibres and matrices in the enlarged view of FRR are
denoted as F and M respectively. Although the fibre and matrices are in
an intimately mixed state in the TBR-compressed composite end, still
some FRR and MRR are observed when the flax content in the corre-
sponding composite ends are 40% and 50% respectively. No such MRR
in the TBRC composite end is observed when the flax content in the
corresponding composite is 60%. It is mainly due to better flax–PP
distribution in the TBR structure at higher flax content. This improved
fibre-resin distribution results in the lower void content of TBR-com-
pressed composite than FSY-compressed composite. The void content of
all composite samples is reported in Table 2. It is observed that the void
content of TBR-compressed composites decreases with increasing flax
content. It could be due to the better fibre-matrix distribution in the
TBR compressed composites having higher flax content. On the other
hand, the void content of FSY-compressed composites varies within a
certain range. No correlation between the flax content and void content
of FSY-compressed composites can be drawn from this study.
The tensile stress-strain curves of the FSY-compressed composites
and the TBR-compressed composites are shown in Fig. 9. The ultimate
tensile strength and modulus of all composite samples are presented in
Fig. 10. The tensile stress-strain curves of both types of composites
exhibit a linear behavior and then a catastrophic failure without
forming any yield point. This phenomenon signifies that the MAgPP
treatment of flax fibres forms a strong fibre-matrix interfacial bonding
which makes the resultant composite brittle. Hence during tensile
testing of both types of composite samples, the fibre and matrix behave
as a single unit and fail together catastrophically. The absence of pulled
out fibres in the tensile fracture ends of all composite samples also
support the argument of enhancing fibre-matrix interaction. Cross-
sectional images of both types of composites (Fig. 5), SEM images of the
cryogenically fractured composite ends (Figs. 7 and 8) and the photo-
graphs of the tensile fractured composite ends (Fig. 6) reveal that the
TBR-compressed composites have better fibre matrix distribution than
FSY-compressed composites. For the same reason and due to low void
volume fraction, at constant flax fibre content, TBR-compressed com-
posites exhibit higher tensile strength (up to 32% higher strength) and
tensile modulus (up to 12% higher modulus) than the FSY-compressed
composites. As expected, the tensile strength and modulus of both types
of composite samples increase with increasing flax content. The fol-
lowing occurrences are observed when the flax content in the respective
composite structures increases from 40 wt. % to 60 wt. %. In case of FSY
compressed composites up to 39% improvement in tensile strength and
up to 81% improvement in tensile modulus; whereas in case of TBR-
compressed composites up to 55% improvement in tensile strength and
up to 77% improvement in tensile modulus are observed.
M. Bar, et al.
Fig. 6. Photographs of the tensile fracture ends of the FSY-compressed composites and the TBR-compressed composites.
Fig. 7. SEM images of the cryogenically fractured FSY-compressed composites ends.
3.2. Flexural properties
Flexural strength and modulus of the FSY-compressed composites
and the TBR-compressed composites are evaluated using three-point
bending test method. During three-point bending test, one side of the
composite specimen experiences a compressive force while the other
side experiences a tensile force. The photographs of the tensile and the
compression sides of the FSY-compressed composites and the TBR-
compressed composites are shown in Fig. 11. In the compression side of
the TBR-compressed composites some mass accumulation as displayed
in Fig. 11(b) is observed when the flax content in the respective com-
posite is equal or less than 50 wt. %. However, no such matrix accu-
mulation on the compression side is observed in rest of the composite
samples. A prominent line of fracture on the tensile side is observed in
all composite samples. The flexural stress-deflection curves of the FSY-
compressed composites and the TBR-compressed composites are
86
Industrial Crops & Products 135 (2019) 81–90
exhibited in Fig. 12. Referring to Fig. 12, the flexural stress initially
increases linearly with deflection and then shows a nonlinear behaviour
and reaches the maximum stress level. Then all stress-deflection curves,
except the curves for TBR-compressed composites having flax content
equals or less than 50 wt. %, show a sharp fall in the flexural stress and
continue at the same stress level or fall gradually with deflection. The
stress-deflection curves of the TBR-compressed composites having flax
content equal or less than 50 wt. %, look like a plateau i.e. no sharp fall
is observed after reaching the maximum stress level. The plateau-
shaped stress-deflection curves and matrix accumulation on the com-
pression side are mainly observed due to the presence of micro-void
filled PP rich zones (as observed in the tensile failure ends of roving
reinforced composites with 40 wt.% and 50 wt. % flax respectively) in
the respective composite samples which behaves as a stress absorber
(Bella et al., 2010).
The ultimate flexural strength and modulus of all unidirectional
M. Bar, et al. Industrial Crops & Products 135 (2019) 81–90

Fig. 8. SEM images of the cryogenically fractured TBR-compressed composites ends.

Table 2 mentioned changes. On the other hand, up to 56% improvement in

Density, fibre and matrix volume fraction and void content of the unidirectional flexural strength and up to 64% improvement in flexural modulus of the
composite specimens. TBR-compressed composites are observed. However, at constant fibre
Sample Measured Fibre Matrix Void Content volume fraction, the TBR-compressed composites exhibit up to 43%
Identity Density (dm) Volume Volume (%) higher flexural strength and up to 16% higher flexural modulus than
Fraction Fraction those of FSY-compressed composites. It is mainly due to better fibre-
matrix distribution and lower void content of the TBR-compressed
TBR-40 1.041 0.283 0.684 3.22 ± 0.07
TBR-50 1.10 0.368 0.608 2.32 ± 0.18 composites as compared to FSY-compressed composites.
TBR-60 1.69 0.476 0.508 1.88 ± 0.13
FSY-40 1.023 0.274 0.679 4.61 ± 0.11
FSY-50 1.087 0.365 0.600 3.60 ± 0.22 3.3. Impact strength
FSY-60 1.13 0..451 0.50 4.9 ± 0.17

The impact strength of the TBR-compressed and FSY-compressed

Fig. 9. Tensile stress-strain curves of the TBR-compressed composites and the
FSY-compressed composites.
composite specimens are presented in Fig. 13. The following occur-
rences are observed when the flax content in the respective composite
structures increases from 40 wt. % to 60 wt. %. In case of FSY-com-
pressed composites up to 41% improvement in flexural strength and up
to 64% improvement in flexural modulus are observed for the above-
composites is reported in Fig. 14. It is observed that the impact strength
of the TBR-compressed composites increases with increasing flax con-
tent. In contrast, the impact strength of the FSY-compressed composites
decreases with increasing flax content. Around 33% improvement in
the impact strength of TBR-compressed composites and 31% dete-
rioration in the impact strength of the FSY-compressed composites are
observed when the flax content in the respective composite samples
increases from 40 wt.% to 60 wt.%. However, in all cases the TBR-
compressed composites show higher impact strength than FSY-com-
pressed composites.
The photographs of both TBR-compressed and FSY-compressed,
Izod impact tested composite specimens are shown in Fig. 15. It is
observed that the FSY-compressed composites break completely
without having any deformation and the line of fracture along the
sample width lies almost in a plane. On the other hand, the TBR-com-
pressed Izod impact tested composite samples fail arbitrarily with some
angular deformations. However, no fibre pull out is observed in the
impact fracture surfaces of any composite sample. Hence it can be
concluded that the impact energy of any composite sample is equal to
the sum of the amount of energy absorbed to break the flax fibres and
the amount of energy absorbed due to matrix deformation. The effect of
fibre reinforcement on the impact strength of composites is more
complicated than that of bending and tensile strengths since, the impact
strength is attributed to the energy consumption during failure (Flynn
et al., 2016). In case of FSY-compressed composites, the fibre bundle
size is comparatively large and the matrix is not uniformly reinforced
by the fibres. Hence, the impact strength in case of FSY-compressed
composites is mainly determined by the matrix deformation. The matrix

87
M. Bar, et al.
Fig. 10. Ultimate tensile strength and tensile modulus of the TBR-compressed composites and FSY-compressed composites.
Fig. 11. Photographs of the tensile and compression side of the TBR-compressed composites and the FSY-compressed composites.
Fig. 12. Flexural stress-deflection curves of the TBR-compressed composites
and the FSY-compressed composites.
deformation of the FSY-compressed composites having 40 wt. % flax is
more than that of the composites having 60 wt. % flax. Hence, the FSY-
compressed composites having 40 wt. % flax show higher impact
strength than the composite having 60 wt. % flax. In case of TBR-
compressed composites, PP matrix is evenly reinforced by the flax fibres
and the fibre bundle sizes are also comparatively smaller than the FSY-
compressed composites. Hence, the impact strength in case of TBR-
compressed composites is mainly determined by the energy absorbed
due to flax fibre breakage. During impact testing of the TBR-compressed
composites, because of better fibre-matrix distribution and strong fibre-
88
Industrial Crops & Products 135 (2019) 81–90
matrix interface (as a result of MAgPP treatment), the flax fibres fail at
their weakest points. As a result, the fracture occurs over a large area
which leading to high impact strength of the TBR-compressed compo-
sites. As the number of flax fibres in the TBR-compressed composites
having 60 wt. % flax is more, it shows higher impact strength than that
of the composite having 40 wt. % flax.
4. Conclusions
In this study, unidirectional composites with different composite
architectures have been produced after consolidating FSY and TBR se-
parately using a compression molding machine. The flax to PP ratios in
both yarn structures are varied at 40 wt. %, 50 wt. % and 60 wt. %
respectively. During composite fabrication, some volume of PP is
squeezed out through the both open ends of the mold. Hence, there is a
difference in fibre to matrix rations between the constituent hybrid yarn
and their composites. All UD-composite specimens are tested for their
tensile, flexural and Izod impact properties. It has been observed that
the tensile and flexural strength of both types of composite specimens
increase with increasing natural fibre content. However, at constant
flax content, the TBR-compressed composites exhibit higher tensile
strength, tensile modulus, flexural strength and flexural modulus than
that of FSY-compressed composites. This is mainly due to better fibre-
matrix distribution and lower void content of the TBR-compressed
composites as compared to FSY-compressed composites. The impact
strength of the FSY-compressed composites decreases with increasing
flax content, but in case of TBR-compressed composites impact strength
increases with increasing flax content. It is mainly due to the nature of
fibre-matrix distribution in the composite structures.
M. Bar, et al. Industrial Crops & Products 135 (2019) 81–90

Fig. 13. Flexural strength and flexural modulus of the TBR-compressed composites and FSY-compressed composites.

Fig. 14. Izod impact strength of the TBR-compressed composites and the FSY-compressed composites.

Fig. 15. Photographs of the Izod impact tested unidirectional composite specimens.

89
M. Bar, et al.
References
Alagirusamy, R., Fangueiro, R., Ogale, V., Padaki, N., 2006. Hybrid yarns and textile
preforming for thermoplastic composites. Text. Prog. 38, 1–71.
Baley, C., Kervoëlen, A., Lan, M., Cartié, D., Duigou, A.L., Bourmaud, A., Davies, P., 2016.
Flax/PP manufacture by automated fibre placement (AFP). Mater. Des. 15, 207–213.
Bar, M., Alagirusamy, R., Das, A., 2015. Flame retardant polymer composite. Fibre Polym.
16, 705–715.
Bar, M., Das, A., Alagirusamy, R., 2017. Studies on flax-polypropylene based low-twist
hybrid yarns for thermoplastic composite reinforcement. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 36,
818–831.
Bar, M., Alagirusamy, R., Das, A., 2018. Effect of interface on composites made from
DREF spun hybrid yarn with low twisted core flax yarn. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci.
Manuf. 107, 260–270.
Bar, M., Alagirusamy, R., Das, A., 2019. Development of Flax-PP based twist-less ther-
mally bonded roving for thermoplastic composite reinforcement. J. Text. Inst. Article
in Press.
Bella, G.D., Fiore, V., Valenza, A., 2010. Effect of areal weight and chemical treatment on
the mechanical properties of bidirectional flax fabric reinforced composites. Mater.
Des. 31, 4098–4103.
Blaker, J.J., Lee, K.Y., Bismarck, A., 2011. Hierarchical composites made entirely from
renewable resources. J. Biobased. Mater. Bioenergy. 5, 1–16.
Carus, M., Scholz, L., 2011. Targets for bio-based composites and natural fibres.
Biowerkstoff report 24 ISSN 1867-1217. 8th ed.
European Parlement, 2009. REGLEMENT (CE) No 443/2009 OF COUNCIL and
EUROPEAN PARLEMENT.
Faruk, O., Bledzki, A.K., Fink, H.P., Sain, M., 2014. Progress report on natural fiber re-
inforced composites. Macromol. Mater. Eng. 299, 9–26.
Fernández, J.A., Moigne, N.L., Caro-Bretelle, A.S., Hage, R.E., Duc, A.L., Lozachmeur, M.,
Bono, P., Bergeret, A., 2016. Role of flax cell wall components on the microstructure
and transverse mechanical behaviour of flax fabrics reinforced epoxy biocomposites.
Ind. Crops Prod. 85, 93–108.
Flynn, J., Amiri, A., Ulven, C., 2016. Hybridized carbon and flax fibre composites for
tailored performance. Mater. Des. 102, 21–29.
Fredricks, R.E., 1995. Density gradient columns made of water and sodium bromide so-
lutions with isopropyl alcohol as a wetting agent. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 57, 509–511.
George, G., Jose, E.T., Jayanarayanan, K., Nagarajan, E.R., Skrifvars, M., Joseph, K.,
2012. Novel bio-commingled composites based on jute/polypropylene yarns: effect of
chemical treatments on the mechanical properties. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf.
43, 219–230.
Henshaw, J.M., Han, W., Owens, A.D., 1996. An overview of recycling issues for com-
posite materials. J. Thermoplast. Compos. Mater. 9, 4–20.
Khondker, O.A., Ishiaku, U.S., Nakai, A., Hamada, H.A., 2006. Novel processing technique
for thermoplastic manufacturing of unidirectional composites reinforced with jute
yarns. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 37, 2274–2284.
Liu, M., Thygesen, A., Summerscales, J., Meyer, A.S., 2017. Targeted pre-treatment of
90
Industrial Crops & Products 135 (2019) 81–90
hemp bast fibres for optimal performance in biocomposite materials: a review. Ind.
Crops Prod. 108, 660–683.
Ma, H., Li, Y., Wang, D., 2014. Investigations of fiber twist on the mechanical properties
of sisal fiber yarns and their composites. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 33, 687–696.
Miao, M., Shan, M., 2011. Highly aligned flax/polypropylene nonwoven preforms for
thermoplastic composites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 71, 1713–1718.
Misnon, M.I., Islam, M.M., Epaarachchi, J.A., Lau, K.T., 2014. Potentiality of utilising
natural textile materials for engineering composites applications. Mater. Des. 59,
359–368.
Mohanty, A.K., Khan, M.A., Hinrichsen, G., 2000. Surface modification of jute and its
influence on performance of biodegradable jute-fabric/biopol composites. Compos.
Sci. Technol. 60, 15–24.
Netravali, A.N., Chabba, S., 2003. Composites get greener. Mater. Today. 6, 22–29.
Ogierman, W., Kokot, G., 2016. A study on fiber orientation influence on the mechanical
response of a short fiber composite structure. Acta Mech. 227, 173–183.
Pickering, K.L., Aruan, E.M.G., 2016a. Preparation and mechanical properties of novel
bio-composite made of dynamically sheet formed discontinuous harakeke and hemp
fibre mat reinforced PLA composites for structural applications. Ind. Crops Prod. 84,
139–150.
Pickering, K.L., Efendy, M.G.A., Le, T.M., 2016b. A review of recent developments in
natural fibre composites and their mechanical performance. Compos. Part A Appl.
Sci. Manuf. 83, 98–112.
Smeder, B., Liljedahl, S., 1996. Market oriented identification of important properties in
developing flax fibres for technical uses. Ind. Crops Prod. 5, 149–162.
Tanguy, M., Bourmaud, A., Beaugrand, J., Gaudry, T., Baley, C., 2018. Polypropylene
reinforcement with flax or jute fibre; Influence of microstructure and constituents
properties on the performance of composite. Compos. Part B Eng. 139, 64–74.
Terzopoulou, Z.N., Papageorgiou, G.Z., Papadopoulou, E., Athanassiadou, E.,
Alexopoulou, E., Bikiaris, D.N., 2015. Green composites prepared from aliphatic
polyesters and bast fibers. Ind. Crops Prod. 68, 60–79.
Väisänen, T., Batello, P., Lappalainen, R., Tomppo, L., 2018. Modification of hemp fibers
(Cannabis sativa L.) for composite applications. Ind. Crops Prod. 111, 422–429.
Vinayagamoorthy, R., 2017. A review on the polymeric laminates reinforced with natural
fibers. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 36, 1577–1589.
Yan, L., Chouw, N., Jayaraman, K., 2014. Flax fibre and its composites - A review.
Compos. Part B Eng. 56, 296–317.
Yusoff, R.B., Takagi, H., Nakagaito, A.N., 2016. Tensile and flexural properties of poly-
lactic acid-based hybrid green composites reinforced by kenaf, bamboo and coir fi-
bers. Ind. Crops Prod. 94, 562–573.
Zhang, L., Miao, M., 2010. Commingled natural fibre/polypropylene wrap spun yarns for
structured thermoplastic composites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 70, 130–135.
Zhou, Y., Fan, M., Chen, L., 2016. Interface and bonding mechanisms of plant fibre
composites: an overview. Compos. Part B Eng. 101, 31–45.
Zini, E., Scandola, M., 2011. Green composites: an overview. Polym. Compos. 32,
1905–1915.