sustainability
Article
Ansys-Based Evaluation of Natural Fiber and Hybrid
Fiber-Reinforced Composites
Ramesh Kumpati 1, *, Wojciech Skarka 1
Citation: Kumpati, R.; Skarka, W.;
Skarka, M. Ansys-Based Evaluation
of Natural Fiber and Hybrid
Fiber-Reinforced Composites.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315992
Academic Editor: Raul
D.S.G. Campilho
Received: 30 September 2022
Accepted: 21 November 2022
Published: 30 November 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315992
and Michał Skarka 2
1 Department of Fundamentals of Machinery Design, Silesian University of Technology, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland
2 Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Kluyverweg 1,
2629 HS Delft, The Netherlands
* Correspondence: ramesh.kumpati@polsl.pl
Abstract: In this research, we analyzed natural composite structures that optimize the material
and weight of the structure. Green composites are made of natural fibers and epoxy resin that are
biodegradable, recyclable, and eco-friendly. Core material failures include wrinkling, failure in
compression, and buckling. To address these issues, this work attempted to create CAD models
using jute fiber, glass fiber, and epoxy resin with various ply sequences using angle orientations of 0◦ ,
30◦ , and 45◦ , and 2–4 mm thick laminates were produced. After creating CAD models, the material
strength, stiffness, deformation of samples, shear strength, strain, and other mechanical properties of
the natural-fiber-reinforced composite laminates were analyzed. The samples were based on two
layers of glass fiber as a core with natural fiber plies below and above this core. The natural fiber with
epoxy resin, the hybrid composite with jute fiber, and the glass fiber with epoxy resin were prepared
and mechanical properties of the samples were evaluated with Ansys. The results indicated that the
0◦ ply orientation of 3 mm thickness had a low deformation (0.237 mm) and was the best material.
The tensile test was performed for natural-fiber-reinforced composite and hybrid natural reinforced
composite laminates at various thicknesses and at various ply orientations using a tensile load of
2500 N. In this investigation, the best material was the one with the thickness of 3 mm with the Young
modulus 35.59 GPa at 0.149 strain with 5303 Pa stress conditions. Further, the above conditions
were noted with low deformation (0.237 mm) at 0◦ ply orientation and tensile strength was noted as
1188 GPa at 3 mm with 45◦ ply orientation. This hybrid composite material can be considered for
unmanned aerial vehicle applications.
Keywords: bio-composite; composite laminates; failure criteria; mechanical properties; sandwich
material
1. Introduction
Natural fiber composite materials are widely used in automotive, construction, textile,
and aerospace industries. Natural reinforcement fibers are relatively low cost, easy to
recycle, biodegradable, and eco-friendly [1]. Jute fiber and polyester resin were combined as
layers with unidirectional (90◦ ) reinforcement to form bio-composites, improving the tensile
and flexural strengths. This final material was used for the interior opening handle design
for a car door [2]. Sisal, roselle, and banana fibers were used in various proportions and
combinations in fabricated bio-composites. These hybrid reinforced composite materials
were used for the manufacture of car parts, i.e., car roofs, dashboards, and door handles [3].
The traditional composite reinforced materials have been replaced by balsa, hemp, bamboo,
coir, jute fibers, etc. [4–6], and have become a potential market as world production reached
33.3 million tons in 2021 and is projected to reach 33.7 million tons in 2022 [7]. Nowadays,
many industries are using natural-fiber-reinforced polymer composites, with the industry
worth approximately USD 2.1 billion in 2010 [8] and growing to nearly USD 6.50 billion
in 2021 [9]. Every year, the usage of natural fibers is more than 80,000–1,600,000 tons [10].
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 2 of 26

Some examples of natural fibers are sisal, coir, jute, leather, wool, flax, borassus, and
phoenix silvestre [11,12]. Many natural fibers are available in the market; however, some of
the natural fibers have limited strength. In particular, material strength is needed to meet
the material-bearable criteria. Natural fibers are easily available in the Asian continent, but
this is not the case in Europe. Hasan et al. (2021) revealed the natural fiber value currently
used in industry and the natural fiber composite market was projected to be worth USD
74 billion in 2020. This may increase by the end of 2025 to USD 112.8 billion with an 8.8%
compound annual growth rate (CAGR) [1].
Due to current global environmental issues, synthetic polymer composites are being
replaced by bio-degradable composite materials. From a material-usage point of view,
there is demand for the creation of a new lightweight material with optimized strength and
a positive environmental impact that can be used in the current market and can replace
conventional material in aerospace applications [13]. The main issues concerning the new
material are material stability, the need for it to be lightweight, fuel efficiency, reduction
of CO2 emissions, and protection of renewable sources. On the other hand, transport
industries, especially the automobile and aerospace industries, are seeking new advanced
materials with a low cost and maximum load-bearing capacity. Furthermore, the cultivation
of natural fibers is very important from an economic point of view and it can impact the
current environmental situation [14]. Composite-reinforced fibers are widely used in the
aerospace, automobile, and marine industries which all have high-strength and lightweight
requirements for structures. In aerospace applications, especially in wing construction, the
sandwich type of composite structure is used extensively. These composite laminates are in
the form of thin, lightweight, strong materials. Such materials can withstand ultimate loads.
Composite sandwich structures are the main structures utilized in lightweight aircraft.
Composite sandwich structures consist of upper and lower layers of skins with high
strength (faces), low mass, and density for the inside layers (core). There are many core ma-
terials available, such as balsa wood, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) honeycomb, polyurethane
(PU) foam, corrugated core, vinyl sheet foam, polyisocyanurate sheet foam, and honey-
comb core. Nowadays, advanced industries are producing honeycomb cores made of
Nomex for sandwich face materials with thin aluminum alloys and composite laminates
with glass, carbon, or Kevlar fibers. Many researchers have examined composites over
the decades and have found many issues during the construction of sandwich structures.
Natural fiber composites mainly depend on the chemical constituents and the distribution
of fibers along with other intrinsic factors, i.e., fiber orientation, fiber geometry, fiber vol-
ume, and matrix arrangement. Fiber volume, thickness, and type of bonding agent are also
important parameters [15]. As a result of many possible causes of failure such as material
debonding, delamination, matrix cracks, face-sheet buckling, fiber breaking, fiber pullout,
cell-wall crushes, and face-sheet core debonding, an analysis to investigate all possible
failure modes has to be conducted. In the process of optimization of the sandwich structure,
all possible failure modes have to be analyzed and parameters influencing the failure
mode should be examined. In our investigation, the ply sequences in the laminates were
changed alternately but in the same proportions (50:50) and the laminates were analyzed
for mechanical properties.
There has been no proper research on natural fibers as synthetic fibers are used for
the construction of light materials. There is an essential need to carry out research on
natural fibers because they are low cost and biodegradable which are useful in unmanned
aerial vehicles. Further, natural fibers are sustainable and have a good life cycle, which is
necessary for UAVs. Research work was reported on a flax and glass fiber hybrid composite
laminate with two alternate layers of glass fiber [16]. No research reports have been found
on the use of jute fibers which are available in nature. There is no bridge in the research on
these natural fibers for the construction of wings and other accessory parts of the UAVs.
Another work attempted to design the CAD models using hybrid Basalt/E-glass/S2
fiber, glass-carbon fiber, and integrating them into the Ansys FEM analysis [17]. Computer-
aided design with 3D models together with the finite element method concept can avoid the
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 28

Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 Another work attempted to design the CAD models using hybrid Basalt/E-glass/S2 3 of 26
fiber, glass-carbon fiber, and integrating them into the Ansys FEM analysis [17]. Com-
puter-aided design with 3D models together with the finite element method concept can
avoid the experimental cost and lower time consumption. It can predict the material fail-
experimental cost and lower time consumption. It can predict the material failure behavior,
ure behavior, facilitates optimization of material characteristics, and can easily be accom-
facilitates optimization of material characteristics, and can easily be accommodated in
modated in modeling from element to element [18–20]. This approach can reduce time
modeling from element to element [18–20]. This approach can reduce time consumption
consumption and costs and improve corrosion resistance, thermal stability, modulus, and
and costs and improve corrosion resistance, thermal stability, modulus, and strength. The
strength. The novelty of the work includes the preparation of hybrid composites based on
novelty of the work includes the preparation of hybrid composites based on jute fiber and
jute fiber and glass fiber with various thicknesses and at various ply orientations. No rel-
glass fiber with various thicknesses and at various ply orientations. No relevant works
evant works have been observed with the jute and glass fiber with various proportions
have been observed with the jute and glass fiber with various proportions and various ply
and various ply sequences. In this work, primarily a 3D CAD model was used for the
sequences. In this work, primarily a 3D CAD model was used for the weight optimization,
weight
and optimization,
it was and Ansys
integrated into it was for
integrated into Ansys
FEM analysis. Onlyfor
twoFEM
coreanalysis.
layers areOnly two core
composed of
glass fibers, and the remaining layers are composed of jute fibers. These materialsfibers.
layers are composed of glass fibers, and the remaining layers are composed of jute were
These materials
checked were checked
for deformation, for deformation,
stress, strain, and tensile stress, strain,
strength. This and tensile
research strength.
is mainly This
focused
research is mainly focused on the NFRC structures stability, material characteristics,
on the NFRC structures stability, material characteristics, and identification of the current and
identification of the current failure modes as well
failure modes as well as other issues connected with them.as other issues connected with them.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Material Selection
Natural fibers have been used in the the automotive
automotive and aerospace industries since the
early 90s. The possibility and usage of NFRC in the automotive region are excellent and
optimistic. Modern
Modern vehicle
vehicle and
and aerospace
aerospace manufacturers
manufacturers have utilized various NFRC
components. Hence, this
components. Hence, this research
research work
work addresses
addresses the
the best
best natural
natural fiber
fiber material
material finding
finding
in
in terms
terms ofof mechanical
mechanical properties,
properties, lightweight
lightweight and and better
better strength,
strength, and
and compatibility
compatibility forfor
Unmanned Arial Vehicle (UAV). In this work, some of the natural fibers
Unmanned Arial Vehicle (UAV). In this work, some of the natural fibers such as jute, glass such as jute,
glass
fibers,fibers, and bonding
and bonding agent agent resin
resin are are for
taken taken for analysis.
analysis. The materials
The materials and methods
and methods are de-
are
scribed in two categories, the first being material selection and the latter material material
described in two categories, the first being material selection and the latter descrip-
description. The material
tion. The material selection
selection procedure procedure is classified
is classified and depicted
and depicted in Figurein Figure
1. 1.

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of experimental work methodology for the evaluation of load-bearing
capacity of
capacity of materials.
materials.

2.1.1. Natural Reinforced Fiber Composites—Jute

Jute fiber is a thick, soft, and good fiber that can stretch out into grainy, strong aligned
threads. These fibers belong to the Tiliaceace family. Jute fabric is used in many applications,
for example, in the textile, automotive, and aerospace industries. Jute plant cultivation is
suitable for subtropical climates with the best places for the cultivation of natural fibers
being in India, Nepal, Bangladesh, China, Thailand, and Brazil. The primary ingredients
of the jute fibers are cellulose and lignin as raw materials. Jute fibers have sporadic cross-
sections with several diameters varying in the structure and size of the plant. Diameter
ranges from 0.01 mm to 0.04 mm, approximately [9].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 4 of 26

Natural jute fiber is useful for composite reinforcement which contains mechanical
properties such as tensile strength (393–773 MPa), elastic modulus (10–30 GPa), and density
of 1.44 g/cm3 [21]. However, some mechanical properties of composites reinforced with
natural jute fibers even now require evaluation. In particular, the determination of impact
behavior is a relevant characteristic that may be associated with impact conditions such
as car crashes [22]. The Charpy test has been used by many researchers to investigate
the impact behavior of various composite material structures. It is possible to estimate
the energy absorbing capability and strength of the laminates throughout the loading
and subsequent failure of the specimen [23,24]. Pereira et al. (2017) stated in his research
work that energy absorption, the volume fraction of the jute fiber, increased when the
strength was evaluated by Charpy impact test. The jute fiber material (longitudinal) was
taken and unidirectionally aligned with reinforcement of the epoxy resin matrix. After
manufacturing, the natural fiber composites were examined in the laboratory. It was noted
that the energy-absorption value was 214 J/m on 30% volume of jute fiber reinforcement
of the epoxy resin matrix [25]. Singh et al. (2018) summarized general values on jute
fiber, i.e., tensile strength, Young’s modulus, percent elongation, density, and diameter [26].
Selected material properties are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Mechanical properties of natural fibers.

Natural Fibers Types Dia. (µm) Tensile Strength (MPa) Young’s Modulus (GPa) Elongation at Break (%) References
Jute fiber 25–200 200, 393, 773–1110 13–25, 26, 26.5 0.7, 1.16–1.5 [9,27–30]
Flax fiber 10–40 110, 343, 600–2000 12, 30, 60, 85–120 0.7, 1, 1.16, 1.5, 2.1–4 [9,27–30]
Sisal fiber 50–200 468–640 9.4–22.0 3–7 [29,30]
Cotton fiber – 287–800 5.5–12.6 7–8 [29,30]
Coir fiber 100–450 131–175 4–6 15–40 [29,30]
Raw date palm fiber (DPF) 100–1000 58–203 2–7.5 5–10 [29,30]

2.1.2. E-Glass Fiber

Glass fiber is a lightweight material that is also extremely strong and robust. When
compared to metals, their bulk strength, stiffness, and weight properties are also very
favorable. In the epoxy resin matrix, an E-glass fiber with random orientation was used
as a reinforcing material. The mechanical properties of E-glass fiber are tensile strength
3445 MPa, compressive strength 1080 MPa, elastic module 73 GPa, density 2.58 g/cm3 , and
Poisson’s ratio 0.22, respectively [27].

2.1.3. Adhesive Epoxy Resin

Epoxy resins are admirable bonding materials that are also called thermosetting resins.
Resins are basically in a liquid or solid form. Epoxy is one of the best adhesives for the
composite material manufacturing process. Nowadays, many resins are available on the
market, and generally, they are also divided into many groups, such as epoxy resins,
vinyl ester resins, and polyester resins [28]. In this research, pure epoxy resins are used
for manufacturing natural fiber laminates. The resin is mixed with hardener at different
compositions to give better mechanical properties. They are used in many applications
such as painting, coatings, fabric manufacturing, wood shining, and construction. The
adhesive properties are listed in Table 2, other natural fiber properties are presented in
Table 1, and their chemical composition properties are also shown in Table 3.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 5 of 26

Table 2. Properties of epoxy resins.

Description Value References

Young’s modulus (MPa) 35,000 [9]
Poisson’s ration 0.35 [9]
Density (kg/m3 ) 1280 [9]

Table 3. Chemical properties of natural fiber.

Natural Fibers Types Cellulose Lignin Hemicellulose Pectin/Wax Moisture Content References
Jute 61, 67–71.5, 12–13 13.6–20.4 0.2/0.5 12.6 [1,27,29,31]
Flax 71 2.2 18.6–20.6 2.3/1.7 10.0 [1,27,29,31]
Sisal 67–68, 67–78 8.0–11.0 10.0–14.20 10.0/2.0/20. 11.0 [1,27,29,31]
Coir 43.4 48.3 4.0 10.2 [1,27]

2.2. Failure Criteria in Laminates

Composite materials are considered lightweight and high strength, and they have
better mechanical properties when compared to other materials. These properties vary in
transverse and longitudinal directions; nevertheless, some extreme condition composites
can fail in terms of stability or can damage the structure. Composite materials are especially
damaged under two conditions such as material damage starting an insignificant crack
(initiation) followed by the propagation of damage, and such problems occur before damage
to the composite material. The composite laminate failure criteria are expressed as follows
in mathematical equations [29,32,33],
Natural-fiber-reinforced composite tension/shear (Material direction_1)
 2  2
E1 (ε1 ) G31 (ε31 )
+ = r7 2 (1)
X1T S FS

Natural-fiber-reinforced composite compression (direction_1)

2
E1 (ε10 )

E3
= r8 2 ε10 = −ε1 − (ε3 ) (2)
X1c E1

Natural-fiber-reinforced composite shear/tension (direction_2)

2 2
G23( ε23)
 
E2 (ε2 )
+ = r9 2 (3)
X2T S FS

Natural-fiber-reinforced composite compression (direction_2)

2
E2 (ε20 )

E3
= r10 2 ε20 = −ε2 − (ε3 ) (4)
X2c E1

Natural-fiber-reinforced composite crush/damage

 2
E3 (ε3 )
= r11 2 (5)
S FC

Natural-fiber-reinforced composite matrix shear (direction_12)

 2
G12 (ε12 )
= r12 2 (6)
S12
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 6 of 26

Natural-fiber-reinforced composite matrix delamination (direction_12)

 2  2  2
E3 (ε3 ) G23 (ε23 ) G31 (ε31 )
S2 + + = r13 2 (7)
S3T S23 S31

where X1T and X1c are longitudinal tensile and compressive material strength at direction_1,
X2T and X2c are transverse material tensile and compressive strength at direction_2, SFS ,
SFC , and S3T are natural fiber shear/tension (direction_2), damage strength, and material
tensile strength, S12 , S23 , and S31 are natural finer composite matrix mode shear strength at
12, 23, and 31 directions. In the final equation (Equation (7)), S is the material delamination
scaling factor; r7- 13 material damage thresholds [30,31,34]. G12 , G23 , and G31 are the natural
finer composite matrix shear modulus at 12, 23, and 31 directions. E1 , E2 , and E3 are the
natural fiber composite matrix Young’s modulus at various directions.
The composite matrix is classified as seven columns and six rows. Every column rep-
resents the material damage mode shape threshold number (r7–13 ), and the row represents
each loading path (damage variable quantity). The ‘q’ is the material matrix considered as
follows in Equation (8) [35,36].

1 0 1 0 1 0
 
0 1 0 1 1 0
 
0 0 0 0 1 0
q=
1
 (8)
 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 0 1 1 0
1 0 1 0 1 0

The new stiffness constant is considered as εi. The compliance matrix S is calculated
based on Equation (9).
1
 
E1(1−ε1)
− υ12
E1 − υ31
E3 0 0 0
1
 − υ12 − υ32 0 0 0
 
 E1 E2(1−ε2) E3 

 − υ13 1
E1 − E2
υ23
E2(1−ε3)
0 0 0 
S= (9)
 
1
0 0 0 0 0

G12(1−ε4)
 
 
1

 0 0 0 0 G23(1−ε5)
0 

1
0 0 0 0 0 G31(1−ε6)

The above-mentioned matrix is used for calculating the strain in orthotropic composite
materials. Matrix S and stiffness matrix c are obtained using the association (S−1 ). Based
on this Equation (10), the stresses are calculated.

δ = C∗ε (10)

When the meshing elements fail, local stiffness lessens the material which is due to internal
cracks, which in turn leads to material deformation in the form of elements. Such causes
are called element distortion and divergence while solving the problem [37–39].

2.3. Optimization Procedure

The preliminary examination was carried out for material density and cross-sectional
area for optimization of material weight by 3D CAD models. This research mainly focused
on the material strength at various geometrical configurations and was carried out in
Ansys. Optimization of the natural-fiber-reinforced composites (NFRC) was taken into
account. In the optimization, the 3D CAD geometrical models were integrated into Ansys
for ply orientation. These geometrical CAD models are represented to understand the
technical configuration of composite materials. The second procedure is hybrid natural
reinforced composites (HNRC), and it is considered to increase the material strength and

Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992
on the material strength at various geometrical configurations and was carried out in An-
sys. Optimization of the natural-fiber-reinforced composites (NFRC) was taken into ac-
count. In the optimization, the 3D CAD geometrical models were integrated into Ansys
for ply orientation. These geometrical CAD models are represented to understand the7 of 26
technical configuration of composite materials. The second procedure is hybrid natural
reinforced composites (HNRC), and it is considered to increase the material strength and
other mechanical
other mechanicalproperties.
properties.The
Thenatural reinforced
natural fiber
reinforced composite
fiber is designed,
composite and and
is designed, the the
optimization procedure is shown in Figure
optimization procedure is shown in Figure 2. 2.

Figure 2.
2. Natural
Naturalreinforced
reinforcedfibers
fiberscomposite
compositedesign and
design optimization
and layout.
optimization layout.

2.4. ResearchMethodology
2.4. Research Methodology
The research
The researchwas wasconducted
conductedinin terms
terms of of material
material optimization
optimization andand lightweight
lightweight struc-struc-
ture strength
strength analysis,
analysis,andandthetheprocedure
procedure is is classified
classified into
into 6 cases.
6 cases. Each Each
casecase optimizes
optimizes
configuration
configuration and andverifies
verifiesthe
themechanical
mechanical properties
properties andand behavior.
behavior. Case_1Case_1 represents
represents the the
total thickness
thicknessof ofthe
theNFRC
NFRCatat2 2mm mmand andply
ply orientation
orientation of of ◦ , 30
0°,030°, ◦ , and
and In◦ .case_2
45°.45 In case_2
and and
case_3, it is 33 and
and 44 mm,
mm,butbutininall
allthe
thecases,
cases,the
thematerial
materialstrength
strengthisistoward
toward the
the longitudi-
longitudinal
nal fiber direction. Similarly, in case_4, case_5, and case_6, instead
fiber direction. Similarly, in case_4, case_5, and case_6, instead of NFRC they were of NFRC they weretested
tested with the HNRC. The difference in the thickness due to the
with the HNRC. The difference in the thickness due to the additional natural fiber additional natural fiber
layers
layers
are are added
added for case_1,
for case_1, case_2,case_2, and case_3
and case_3 without
without E-glass
E-glass fiber.fiber. In contrast,
In contrast, in case_4,
in case_4, case_5,
case_5,
and and case_6,
case_6, the middle
the middle core layers
core layers are fabricated
are fabricated withwith E-glass
E-glass fiber,fiber,
butbut
thethe thick- is
thickness
ness is increased
increased by theby the additional
additional naturalnatural
fiberfiber layers.
layers. TheThe design
design classification
classification casecaseanalysis
anal- is
ysis is classified
classified as follows
as follows in Figure
in Figure 3. 3.
• Case:1 NFRC optimization with 2 mm thickness.
• Case:2 NFRC optimization with 3 mm thickness.
• Case:3 NFRC optimization with 4 mm thickness.
• Case:4 HNRC optimization with 2 mm thickness.
• Case:5 HNRC optimization with 3 mm thickness.
• Case:6 HNRC optimization with 4 mm thickness.
 • Case:1 NFRC optimization with 2 mm thickness.
• Case:2 NFRC optimization with 3 mm thickness.
• Case:3 NFRC optimization with 4 mm thickness.
• Case:4 HNRC optimization with 2 mm thickness.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 8 of 26
• Case:5 HNRC optimization with 3 mm thickness.
• Case:6 HNRC optimization with 4 mm thickness.

Figure
Figure 3. 3. Configurationofofply
Configuration plyorientation
orientationfor
for natural
natural fiber
fiber jute
jute laminates,
laminates,(a,d,g)
(a,d,g)ply orientationofof 0◦
plyorientation
0° with 2–4 mm, (b,e,h) ply orientation of◦ 30° with 2–4 mm, (c,f,i) ply orientation of 45° with 2–4
with 2–4 mm, (b,e,h) ply orientation of 30 with 2–4 mm, (c,f,i) ply orientation of 45◦ with 2–4 mm.
mm.
3. Geometrical Modeling
3. Geometrical Modeling
Natural-fiber-reinforced composite laminate consists of different types of ply orien-
tation. Natural-fiber-reinforced
The ply sequence is the composite
key pointlaminate consiststhe
to increase of different
materialtypes of ply orien-
strength. This was
tation. The ply sequence is the key point to increase the material strength. This was also
also considered for weight optimization. Case one is considered as 0 , 30◦ , and 45◦ ply
◦
considered for weight optimization. Case one is considered as 0°, 30°, and 45° ply orien-
orientation (balanced laminate) 8 [0◦ /0◦ /0◦ /0◦ /0◦ /0◦ /0◦ /0◦ ], the second ply—sequence
tation (balanced laminate) 8 [0°/0°/0°/0°/0°/0°/0°/0°], the second ply—sequence of 30° (an-
of 30◦ (angle-symmetric ply is laminate) 8 [0◦ /30◦ /0◦ /−30◦ /−30◦ /0◦ /30◦ /0◦ ], and the
gle-symmetric ply is laminate) 8 [0°/30°/0°/−30°/−30°/0°/30°/0°], and the third ply—se-
third ply—sequence as 8 [0◦ /45◦ /0◦ /−45◦ /−45◦ /0◦ /45◦ /0◦ ]. The total thickness of the
quence as 8 [0°/45°/0°/−45°/−45°/0°/45°/0°]. The total thickness of the laminates considered
laminates considered
for analysis is 2–4 mm.forHence,
analysis
epoxyis 2–4 mm.
resin Hence,
is used epoxy resin
for bonding is used
between each for
ply.bonding
The
between each ply. The natural fiber-woven type sheet is approximately 300
natural fiber-woven type sheet is approximately 300 mm in length and 50 mm in width. mm in length
and
The50natural
mm infibers
width.areThe natural
standard of fibers
0.25 toare standard
0.33 of 0.25 to
mm in diameter 0.33These
[10]. mm laminates
in diameterare[10].
These laminates are very thin layers and lightweight structures, and the combination
very thin layers and lightweight structures, and the combination of the two different of the
two different materials, such as natural fibers and glass fibers, is called hybrid composite.
The master material surface represents natural fibers, and the slave material surface is
called glass fibers, and it is presented in Figure 4. The application perspective for natural
reinforced fiber composites is in aerospace applications (unmanned aerial vehicles with
entire wing structures with fuselage).

Geometrical Model_1 and _2

The natural reinforced fibers are constructed along with epoxy resin at various thick-
nesses and different ply orientations. The created geometrical models are a combination
of natural fiber and synthetic fiber (E-glass). The geometrical CAD model of 2D and 3D
diagrams is presented in Figure 5.
 materials, such as natural fibers and glass fibers, is called hybrid composite. The master
material surface represents natural fibers, and the slave material surface is called glass
fibers, and it is presented in Figure 4. The application perspective for natural reinforced
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 9 of 26
fiber composites is in aerospace applications (unmanned aerial vehicles with entire wing
structures with fuselage).

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER Figure

4.4.Configuration
REVIEW
Figure Configuration of
of hybrid
hybrid composite
compositelaminates, (a,d,g)
laminates, plyply
(a,d,g) orientation
orientation 0◦ with
of 0°ofwith 2–4
10 of mm,
28 mm,
2–4
(b,e,h) ply orientation of 30° with 2–4 mm, (c,f,i) ply orientation of 45° with 2–4 mm.
(b,e,h) ply orientation of 30◦ with 2–4 mm, (c,f,i) ply orientation of 45◦ with 2–4 mm.

Geometrical Model_1 and _2

The natural reinforced fibers are constructed along with epoxy resin at various thick-
nesses and different ply orientations. The created geometrical models are a combination
of natural fiber and synthetic fiber (E-glass). The geometrical CAD model of 2D and 3D
diagrams is presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5. (a) Natural fiber: Jute 3D-CAD model; (b) hybrid natural fiber 3D-CAD model; and (c)
Figure 5. (a) Natural fiber: Jute 3D-CAD model; (b) hybrid natural fiber 3D-CAD model; and (c) geo-
geometrical 2D-CAD model with 2, 3 and 4mm.
metrical 2D-CAD model with 2, 3 and 4 mm.
4. Analysis
Evaluating the material strength and mechanical properties is a very challenging
task. However, in this research, different types of laminates with different ply orientation
configurations were designed as per the engineering data. The analysis of natural rein-
forced fiber composite laminates was performed using Ansys. The analysis is conducted
by two methods: the first method considers the analysis of natural fiber with adhesive,
and the latter one consists of hybrid natural fiber along with the epoxy resin. The load and
boundary conditions are also subject to 2500 N tension. The static load was applied in the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 Figure 5. (a) Natural fiber: Jute 3D-CAD model; (b) hybrid natural fiber 3D-CAD model; 10
andof (c)
26
geometrical 2D-CAD model with 2, 3 and 4mm.

4. Analysis
4. Analysis
Evaluating the
Evaluating the material
material strength
strength and
and mechanical
mechanical properties
properties is is aa very
very challenging
challenging
task. However, in this research, different types of laminates with different
task. However, in this research, different types of laminates with different ply orientation ply orientation
configurations were designed as per the engineering data. The analysis
configurations were designed as per the engineering data. The analysis of natural reinforced of natural rein-
forced
fiber fiber composite
composite laminateslaminates was performed
was performed using The
using Ansys. Ansys. The analysis
analysis is conducted
is conducted by two
by two methods:
methods: the first the first method
method considers considers the analysis
the analysis of naturalof fiber
natural
with fiber with adhesive,
adhesive, and the
and the
latter onelatter oneof
consists consists
hybridof hybridfiber
natural natural
alongfiber
withalong with the
the epoxy epoxy
resin. The resin.
load andTheboundary
load and
boundary conditions
conditions are also
are also subject subject
to 2500 to 2500The
N tension. N tension. Thewas
static load static load in
applied wastheapplied in the
longitudinal
longitudinal direction. The fiber orientation is considered as far as the increase
direction. The fiber orientation is considered as far as the increase in the material integrity in the ma-
terial
as wellintegrity as well
the stability thematerial.
of the stability The
of the material.
results Theby
attained results attainedofby
the analysis the analysis
several syntheticof
several
fibers synthetic
could fibers by
be replaced could be replaced
natural reinforcedby fiber
natural reinforcedThis
composites. fiber composites.
material is alsoThis ma-
suitable
terial
for is also suitable
automotive for automotive
and aerospace and especially
applications, aerospace lightweight
applications, especially
structures forlightweight
unmanned
aerial vehicles.
structures Stress–strain
for unmanned values,
aerial deformation
vehicles. shearvalues,
Stress–strain stress, deformation
and von Mises stress
shear are
stress,
verified
and voninMisesthis research.
stress areAll the results
verified in thisare plotted All
research. andthenotified
resultsbyaretheir names.
plotted andThe load
notified
and boundary
by their names.conditions are presented
The load and boundaryin Figure 6. are presented in Figure 6.
conditions

Figure 6.
Figure 6. (a)
(a) Geometrical
Geometrical CAD
CAD model
model and
and (b)
(b) FEM
FEM model
model with
with boundary
boundary conditions.
conditions.

4.1. Engineering Material Data

Before conducting the analysis, precautionary measurements were taken towards
material selection and engineering data. Most of the data was considered from recent
research articles published in highly ranked journals.

4.2. Boundary Conditions and Meshing

One of the big challenges in assessing the material strength is the fact that natural
fibers have high water absorption rate, which is also their disadvantage. However, fibers
can be dried at room temperature in order to avoid such issues. Many studies have
conducted different tests; nevertheless, there is still a research gap. The load is applied in
the longitudinal direction, the fiber orientation is also considered in the unidirectional fiber
orientation. The specimen is designed 300 mm long, 50 mm wide and with thicknesses
of 2–4 mm. A boundary condition is applied at one end (Dof-0), and at another end a
static load of 2500 N is applied in terms of tension. The meshing of the NRFC model is
discretized model into small elements. Selecting the mesh type also plays a very important
role since it is basically made up of elements which contain nodes. The sweep mesh is used
for this research. The meshing element size is 2 mm, the number of nodes is 3926, and there
are elements 3750 of shell 181 type.

5. Results
5.1. Case_1, 2, and 3 (Natural Reinforced Fiber Composite Laminate)
The analysis was carried out in two stages as described earlier. The first stage of analy-
sis is toward natural reinforced fiber composite laminates with different plies- orientation.
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 11 of 26

The maximum material stress (von Mises stress), total deformation, shear stress and strain
are plotted in Figures 7–10. The analysis has been carried out for the natural reinforced fiber
composites at different configurations as shown in Figure 6. The maximum deformation
value (0.950 mm) was noted at 30◦ at 2 mm thickness. The minimum deformation was
(0.105 mm) at 45◦ at 2 mm.

5.1.1. Maximum Deformation Results of 0◦ , 30◦ , and 45◦ with 2, 3, and 4 mm,
Respectively (NFRC)
The NFRC maximum deformation value is 0.950 mm, and it is noted at 30◦ with a
2 mm thickness of the laminate. The minimum deformation value is 0.105 mm, and it is
noted at 45◦ with 2 mm thickness. All configurations of laminate results are presented in
Table 4, and analysis results are shown in Figure 7.

Table 4. Total deformation results at various configurations of 2–4 mm.

0◦ Deformation 30◦ Deformation 45◦ Deformation

Description
(mm) (mm) (mm)
Jute fiber (2 mm) 0.897 0.950 0.105
tainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW Jute fiber (3 mm) 0.594 0.646 0.713 12 of
Jute fiber (4 mm) 0.446 0.475 0.591

7. Deformation ◦ ◦ ◦
FigureFigure
7. Deformation atat0°,0 30°,
, 30 ,and
and 45
45°with
withdifferent configurations
different (Jute—2–4
configurations mm).
(Jute—2–4 mm).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 12 of 26

5.1.2. Maximum von Mises Stress Results of 0◦ , 30◦ , and 45◦ with 2, 3, and 4 mm,
Respectively (NFRC)
The NFRC maximum von Mises stress value is 2384 Pa, and it is noted at 45◦ with a
2 mm thickness of the laminate. The minimum von Mises stress value is 1021.11 Pa, and it
is noted at 0◦ with 4 mm thickness. All configurations of laminate results are presented in
Table 5, and analysis results are shown in Figure 8.

Table 5. The total maximum stress (von Mises) results at various configuration 2–4 mm.

0◦ Maximum Stress 30◦ Maximum Stress 45◦ Maximum Stress

Description
(Von-Mises) (Pa) (Von-Mises) (Pa) (Von-Mises) (Pa)
Jute fiber (2 mm) 2043.95 2157.17 2384.01
Jute fiber (3 mm)
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 1362.15 1502.57 1650.00 13 of 28
Jute fiber (4 mm) 1021.11 1087.96 1364.00

Figure8.8.Maximum
Figure Maximumstress
stressat
at00°, 30°,
◦ , 30 and 45
◦ , and 45° with different
◦ with different configurations
configurations (Jute—2–4
(Jute—2–4 mm).
mm).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 13 of 26

5.1.3. Maximum von Mises Strain Results of 0◦ , 30◦ , and 45◦ with 2, 3, and 4 mm,
Respectively (NFRC)
The NFRC maximum von Mises strain value is 0.631, and it is noted at 45◦ with a
2 mm thickness of the laminate. The minimum von Mises strain value is 0.276, and it is
noted at 0◦ with 4 mm thickness. All configurations of laminate results are presented in
Table 6, and analysis results are shown in Figure 9.

Table 6. The total maximum strain results at various configurations 2–4 mm.

Description 0◦ Max. Von. Strain 30◦ Max. Von. Strain 45◦ Max. Von. Strain
Jute fiber (2 mm) 0.551 0.571 0.631
Jute fiber (3 mm)
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 0.367 0.477 0.522 14 of 28
Jute fiber (4 mm) 0.276 0.343 0.431

Figure 9. Maximum strain at 0°, 30°, and 45° with different configurations (Jute—2–4 mm).
Figure 9. Maximum strain at 0◦ , 30◦ , and 45◦ with different configurations (Jute—2–4 mm).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 14 of 26

5.1.4. Maximum von Mises Shear Stress Results of 0◦ , 30◦ , and 45◦ with 2, 3, and 4 mm,
Respectively (NFRC)
The NFRC maximum shear stress value is 798.20 Pa, and it is noted at 45◦ with a 2 mm
thickness of the laminate. The minimum shear stress value is 79.67 Pa, and it is noted at 0◦
with 4 mm thickness. All configurations of laminate results are presented in Table 7, and
analysis results are shown in Figure 10.

Table 7. The total shear stress results at various configuration 2–4 mm.

0◦ Shear Stress (XY) 30◦ Shear Stress (XY) 45◦ Shear Stress (XY)
Description
(Pa) (Pa) (Pa)
Jute fiber (2 mm) 155.00 591.00 798.20
Jute fiber (3 mm)
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 102.92 505.00 467.00 15 of 28
Jute fiber (4 mm) 79.67 322.00 498.00

Figure
Figure10.
10.Shear
Shearstress
stressof 0◦ ,30°,
of0°, 30◦ ,and 45◦with
and45° withdifferent
differentconfigurations
configurations(Jute—2–4
(Jute—2–4mm).
mm).

5.1.1. Maximum Deformation Results of 0°, 30°, and 45° with 2, 3, and 4 mm, respec-
tively (NFRC).
The NFRC maximum deformation value is 0.950 mm, and it is noted at 30° with a 2
mm thickness of the laminate. The minimum deformation value is 0.105 mm, and it is
noted at 45° with 2 mm thickness. All configurations of laminate results are presented in
Table 4, and analysis results are shown in Figure 7.
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 15 of 26

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 28

5.1.5. Stress–Strain Results of 0◦ , 30◦ , and 45◦ with 2, 3, and 4 mm, Respectively
Natural reinforced fiber composite laminate and hybrid composite, shown in Figure 11.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 28

Figure 11. Stress–strain graph of 0°, 30°, and 45° with different configurations (Jute and hybrid—2–
Figure 11.11.
Figure Stress–strain
Stress–straingraph
graph of
4 mm). 0◦ , 30
of 0°, ◦ , and
30°, and45 ◦ with
45° withdifferent
different configurations
configurations (Jute(Jute and hybrid—2–
and hybrid—2–
4 mm).
4 mm).
5.1.6. Stress–Strain Graph Comparison of 0°, 30°, and 45° with 2, 3, and 4 mm,
5.1.6. Stress–Strain Graph Comparison of 0◦ , 30◦ , and 45◦ with 2, 3, and 4 mm, Respectively
5.1.6. Stress–StrainRespectively
Graph Comparison of 0°, 30°, and 45° with 2, 3, and 4 mm,
Natural reinforced fiber reinforced
Natural compositefiber
laminate, shown
composite in Figure
laminate, 12.in Figure 12.
shown
Respectively
Natural
3000 reinforced fiber composite laminate, shown in Figure 12.

3000
2500

2500 2000

0°, 30°and 45° Maximum

Stress (Pa)

stress -Strain curve at 2mm

1500
2000 0°, 30°and 45°Maximum
stress -Strain curve at 3mm
0°, 30°and 45° Maximum
Stress (Pa)

1000 0°, 30°and 45°Maximum

stress -Strain curve
stress -Strainatcurve
2mm at 4mm
1500
0°, 30°and 45°Maximum
500
stress -Strain curve at 3mm
1000 0°, 30°and 45°Maximum
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
stress
0.8
-Strain curve at 4mm
Strain
500
Figure 12. Stress–strain graph comparison of 0°, 30°, and 45° with deferent configurations (Jute 2–4
Figure 12. Stress–strain graph comparison of 0◦ , 30◦ , and 45◦ with deferent configurations (Jute 2–4 mm).
mm).
0 5.2. Case_4, 5, and 6 (Hybrid Natural Reinforced Fiber Composite Laminate)
0 0.2 The natural 5.2. Case_4, 0.6
0.4fiber 5, and 6 (Hybrid Natural Reinforced Fiber Composite Laminate)
0.8results
composite laminate were presented in the first part, nonethe-
The natural fiber composite laminate results were presented in the first part, none-
Strain
less, in order to continue the second part of the analysis hybrid composites were considered.
theless, in order to continue the second part of the analysis hybrid composites were con-
It consists of natural fiberItand
sidered. E-Glass
consists with epoxy
of natural resin.
fiber and E-Glass with epoxy resin.
Figure 12. Stress–strain graph comparison of 0°, 30°, and 45° with deferent configurations (Jute 2–4
mm).

5.2. Case_4, 5, and 6 (Hybrid Natural Reinforced Fiber Composite Laminate)

The natural fiber composite laminate results were presented in the first part, none-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 16 of 26
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 28

5.2.1. Maximum Deformation Results of 0◦ , 30◦ , and 45◦ with 2, 3, and 4 mm,
Respectively
5.2.1. Maximum (HNRC)
Deformation Results of 0°, 30°, and 45° with 2, 3, and 4 mm,
The HNRC
Respectively maximum deformation value is 0.626 mm, and it is noted at 45◦ with a
(HNRC)
2 mm Thethickness
HNRC ofmaximum
the laminate. The minimum
deformation value deformation value
is 0.626 mm, and it is
is 0.209
notedmm,
at 45°and it is
with a2
noted at 0 ◦ with 4 mm thickness. All configurations of laminate results are presented in
mm thickness of the laminate. The minimum deformation value is 0.209 mm, and it is
Table
noted8, at
and 0°analysis results
with 4 mm are shown
thickness. All in Figure 13. of laminate results are presented in
configurations
Table 8, and analysis results are shown in Figure 13.
Table 8. The total deformation results at various configurations 2–4 mm.
Table 8. The total deformation results at various configurations 2–4 mm.
0◦ Deformation 30◦ Deformation 45◦ Deformation
Description
(mm)
0° Deformation 30°(mm) Deformation (mm)
45° Deformation
Description Hybrid
(mm) (J/G/J) Hybrid (J/G/J)
(mm) Hybrid (J/G/J)
(mm)
Thickness (2 mm) Hybrid (J/G/J)
0.274 Hybrid
0.543 (J/G/J) Hybrid
0.626 (J/G/J)
Thickness
Thickness (2 mm)
(3 mm) 0.274
0.237 0.543
0.414 0.626
0.488
Thickness
Thickness (3 mm)
(4 mm) 0.237
0.209 0.414
0.327 0.488
0.382
Thickness (4 mm) 0.209 0.327 0.382

Figure Maximum
13.13. deformation ◦ , 30◦ , and 45◦ with different configurations (Hybrid—2–4 mm).
of 0of
Figure Maximum deformation 0°, 30°, and 45° with different configurations (Hybrid—2–4
mm).

5.2.2. Maximum von Mises Stress Results of 0°, 30°, and 45° with 2–4 mm, Respectively
(HNRC)
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 17 of 26

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 28

5.2.2. Maximum von Mises Stress Results of 0◦ , 30◦ , and 45◦ with 2–4 mm, Respectively
(HNRC)
The
The HNRC maximum von
HNRC maximum von Mises
Misesstress
stressvalue
valueisis6125.26
6125.26Pa,
Pa,and
andititisisnoted
notedatat0◦0°with
witha
a2 2mmmmthickness
thickness ofof
thethe laminate.
laminate. The
The minimum
minimum vonvon Mises
Mises stress
stress value
value is 3257.8
is 3257.8 Pa, and
Pa, and it is
it
noted at 45at◦ 45°
is noted withwith
4 mm4 mm thickness.
thickness. AllAll configurations
configurations of laminate
of laminate results
results areare presented
presented in
in Table 9, and analysis results are shown in
Table 9, and analysis results are shown in Figure 14.Figure 14.

Table 9. The
Table 9. total Max.
The total Max. Stress
Stress results at various
results at various configuration
configuration 2–4
2–4 mm.
mm.

0° 0Maximum
◦ Maximum Stress 30°30Maximum
◦ Maximum Stress 45°
45◦Maximum
Maximum Stress
Description
Description Stress
(von (von
Mises)Mises)
(Pa) Stress
(von(von Mises)
Mises) (Pa) Stress (von Mises)
(von Mises) (Pa)
(Pa)
Hybrid (J/G/J) (Pa)
Hybrid (J/G/J) (Pa)
Hybrid (J/G/J)
Thickness (2 mm)
Hybrid
6124.26
(J/G/J) Hybrid (J/G/J)
5247.63
Hybrid
4860.69
(J/G/J)
Thickness (2 mm) 6124.26 5247.63 4860.69
Thickness (3 mm) 5303.47 4447.02 3635.47
Thickness (3 mm) 5303.47 4447.02 3635.47
Thickness (4 mm) 4679.5 3946.65 3257.8
Thickness (4 mm) 4679.5 3946.65 3257.8

Figure
Figure14.
14.Maximum
Maximumstress
stressofof0°,
0◦ ,30°,
30◦and
, and45°
45◦with
withdifferent
differentconfigurations
configurations(Hybrid—2–4
(Hybrid—2–4mm).
mm).

5.2.3. Maximum Strain Results of 0°, 30°, and 45° with 2–4 mm, Respectively (HNRC)
The HNRC maximum von Mises strain value is 0.377, and it is noted at 45° with a 2
mm thickness of the laminate. The minimum von Mises strain value is 0.131, and it is
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 18 of 26

5.2.3. Maximum Strain Results of 0◦ , 30◦ , and 45◦ with 2–4 mm, Respectively (HNRC)
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW HNRC maximum von Mises strain value is 0.377, and it is noted at 45◦ 20
The of 28
with a
2 mm thickness of the laminate. The minimum von Mises strain value is 0.131, and it is
noted at 0◦ with 4 mm thickness. All configurations of laminate results are presented in
Table
noted 10, and
at 0° analysis
with 4 mmresults are shown
thickness. in Figure 15. of laminate results are presented in
All configurations
Table 10, and analysis results are shown in Figure 15.
Table 10. The total maximum von Mises strain results at various configurations of 2–4 mm.
Table 10. The total maximum von Mises strain results◦ at various configurations of 2–4 mm.
Description 0◦ Max. Von. Strain 30 Max. Von. Strain 45◦ Max. Von. Strain
Description 0° Max.Von.strain
Hybrid (J/G/J) 30° Max.Von.strain
Hybrid (J/G/J) 45° Max.Von.strain
Hybrid (J/G/J)
Thickness (2 mm) Hybrid
0.174 (J/G/J) Hybrid
0.322 (J/G/J) Hybrid
0.377 (J/G/J)
Thickness (2 mm) 0.174 0.322 0.377
Thickness (3 mm) 0.149 0.256 0.295
Thickness (3 mm) 0.149 0.256 0.295
Thickness (4 mm) 0.131 0.202 0.231
Thickness (4 mm) 0.131 0.202 0.231

Figure
Figure15.
15.Maximum
MaximumStrain
Strainatat0°,
0◦ ,30°,
30◦ ,and
and45°
45◦with
withdifferent
differentconfigurations
configurations(Hybrid—2–4
(Hybrid—2–4mm).
mm).

5.2.4. Maximum Shear Stress Results at 0°, 30°, and 45° with 2, 3, and 4 mm, Respectively
(HNRC)
The HNRC maximum shear stress value is 1188.39 Pa, and it is noted at 45° with a 3
mm thickness of the laminate. The minimum shear stress value is 198.755 Pa, and it is
noted at 0° with 4 mm thickness. All configurations of laminate results are presented in
Table 11, and analysis results are shown in Figure 16.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 19 of 26

5.2.4. Maximum Shear Stress Results at 0◦ , 30◦ , and 45◦ with 2, 3, and 4 mm, Respectively
(HNRC)
The HNRC maximum shear stress value is 1188.39 Pa, and it is noted at 45◦ with a
3 mm thickness of the laminate. The minimum shear stress value is 198.755 Pa, and it is
noted at 0◦ with 4 mm thickness. All configurations of laminate results are presented in
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 28
Table 11, and analysis results are shown in Figure 16.

Table 11. The shear stress results at various configuration 2–4 mm.
Table 11. The shear stress results at various configuration 2–4 mm.
0◦ Shear Stress (XY) 30◦ Shear Stress (XY) 45◦ Shear Stress (XY)
Description 0°(Pa)
Shear Stress 30° Shear
(Pa) Stress (XY) 45° Shear Stress (XY)
(Pa)
Description
(XY) (Pa)(J/G/J)
Hybrid (Pa)Hybrid (J/G/J) (Pa)
Hybrid (J/G/J)
Hybrid (J/G/J) Hybrid (J/G/J) Hybrid (J/G/J)
Thickness (2 mm) 332.824 356.55 437.1
Thickness (2 mm) 332.824 356.55 437.1
Thickness (3 mm) 249.66 1141.73 1188.39
Thickness (3 mm) 249.66 1141.73 1188.39
Thickness (4 mm) 198.755 215.69 277.711
Thickness (4 mm) 198.755 215.69 277.711

Figure 16. Maximum

Figure 16. Maximumshear
shearstress
stress
at at
0◦ ,0°,
30◦30°,
, andand
45◦ 45°
withwith different
different configurations
configurations (Hybrid—2–4
(Hybrid—2–4 mm).
mm).

5.2.5. Stress–Strain Graph Comparison at 0°, 30°, and 45° with 2, 3, and 4 mm,
Respectively
Hybrid natural reinforced fiber composite laminate) shown in
Figure 17.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 20 of 26

5.2.5. Stress–Strain Graph Comparison at 0◦ , 30◦ , and 45◦ with 2, 3, and 4 mm, Respectively
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 28
Hybrid natural reinforced fiber composite laminate) shown in Figure 17.

7000

6000

5000
Stress (Pa)

4000 0°, 30° and 45° Maximum

Stress -Strain curve at 2mm
3000 0°, 30° and 45° Maximum
Stress -Strain curve at 3 mm

2000 0°, 30° and 45°Maximum

Stress -Strain curve at 4 mm

1000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Strain

Figure 17. Stress–strain graph comparison of 0°, 30°, and 45° with different configurations (Jute—
Figure 17. Stress–strain graph comparison of 0◦ , 30◦ , and 45◦ with different configurations (Jute—2–
2–4 mm).
4 mm).
6. Discussion
6. Discussion The tensile test was performed for NFRC laminates at various thicknesses and at var-
ious ply orientations using the tensile load of 2500 N. The deformation results of 0° ply
The tensileorientation
test waswere performed for0.594,
noted as 0.897, NFRC laminates
and 0.446 mm for 2–4 at various
mm thickness, thicknesses
respectively.and at
various ply orientations usingresults
The deformation the tensile
of 30° plyload of 2500
orientation wereN. Theasdeformation
noted results
0.95, 0.646, and 0.713 mm forof 0◦ ply
2–4 mm thickness, respectively. The deformation results
orientation were noted as 0.897, 0.594, and 0.446 mm for 2–4 mm thickness, respectively. at 45° ply orientation were noted
as 0.105, 0.713, and◦0.591 mm for 2–4 mm thickness, respectively. These higher values in-
The deformation results
dicate that theofdeformation
30 ply orientation were
is high. Similarly, noted
the same as 0.95,
conditions were 0.646,
appliedand 0.713 mm
for HFRC
for 2–4 mm thickness,
laminates,respectively.
the results of 0° ply The deformation
orientation were noted results 45◦ and
as 0.274,at0.237, ply0.209
orientation
mm for 2– were
4 mm thickness,
noted as 0.105, 0.713, and 0.591 respectively.
mm for The 2–4results of 30° ply orientation
mm thickness, were noted
respectively. as 0.543,
These 0.414,values
higher
and 0.327 mm for 2–4 mm thickness, respectively. The deformation results of 45° ply ori-
indicate that the entation
deformation is high. Similarly, the same conditions were
were noted as 0.626, 0.488, and 0.382 mm for 2–4 mm thickness, respectively. The
applied for HFRC
laminates, the results ◦
of 0 ply
results indicated thatorientation wereofnoted
the 0° ply orientation as 0.274,
4 mm thickness 0.237,
is the and 0.209
best material with low mm for
2–4 mm thickness, deformation (0.209 mm).
respectively. TheThisresults
natural fiber
of 30 ◦ ply
(Jute fiber) can be used aswere
orientation skin for wingsas
noted in 0.543,
0.414, and 0.327 unmanned
mmThe aerial vehicles.
forabove
2–4 mm thickness, respectively. The deformation results of 45◦ ply
conditions were utilized to test the stress and strain on the same material
orientation wereand noted as 0.626,
the results indicated 0.488, and 0.382
that Young’s modulusmm for GPa
35.717 2–4wasmm thickness,
noted respectively.
for 0° ply orienta-
The results indicated
tion at that
4 mm the 0◦ ply
thickness. orientation
Similar results were ofobserved
4 mm thickness
in the report is the best material
of Serra-Parareda et al. with
low deformation(2021)
(0.209 on Henequen fiber reinforced PP composites [40]. The jute fiber was used for the
mm). This natural fiber (Jute fiber) can be used as skin for wings in
fabrication of bio-composite and found that the results reported by several researchers
unmanned aerial(Mitravehicles.
(2014); Abilash and Siva Pragash, (2013) support this investigation [41,42]. Ammu-
The above conditions
rullah were
et al. (2022) utilized
addressed to test the
the importance stress
of the and strain
computational on the same
simulation-based material
study
on three different ceramic materials and analyzed (ceramic-on-ceramic
and the results indicated that Young’s modulus 35.717 GPa was noted for 0 ply orientation ◦
couplings) them
using Tresca stresses [43]. Saravannan et al. (2021) was investigated with different natural
at 4 mm thickness. Similar
fibers along withresults werematerial
aluminum observed in the report
as a combination of Serra-Parareda
of hybrid et al. (2021)
material. He concluded
on Henequen fiber thatreinforced
natural fiber PP composites
(flax) has superior [40]. Thecompared
properties jute fibertowas otherused for [9].
materials theInfabrication
this
of bio-compositeinvestigation,
and found thethat
best material is the one
the results with the thickness
reported by several of 3 mm with the Young
researchers mod-(2014);
(Mitra
ulus 35.59 GPa at 0.149 strain with 5303 Pa stress conditions. These hybrid composites can
Abilash and Siva Pragash, (2013) support this investigation [41,42]. Ammurullah et al.
(2022) addressed the importance of the computational simulation-based study on three
different ceramic materials and analyzed (ceramic-on-ceramic couplings) them using Tresca
stresses [43]. Saravannan et al. (2021) was investigated with different natural fibers along
with aluminum material as a combination of hybrid material. He concluded that natural
fiber (flax) has superior properties compared to other materials [9]. In this investigation,
the best material is the one with the thickness of 3 mm with the Young modulus 35.59 GPa
at 0.149 strain with 5303 Pa stress conditions. These hybrid composites can be used in
wing construction and sub parts of spars, ribs, and also for skin in unmanned aerial
 Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 28
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 21 of 26

be used in wing construction and sub parts of spars, ribs, and also for skin in unmanned
aerial vehicles.
vehicles. Further,
Further, the the above
above conditionswere
conditions werenoted
noted with
with low
lowdeformation
deformation (0.0237)
(0.0237) of
◦
of 0° ply orientation.
0 ply orientation.

6.1. Comparison
6.1. Comparison of
of Stress–Strain
Stress–StrainPlot
PlotatatNatural
NaturalReinforced
ReinforcedFiber Composite
Fiber andand
Composite Hybrid
Hybrid Composite
Shown in Figure
Composite Shown18in Figure 18
The stress–strain
The stress–strainplots
plotsofof NRFC
NRFC andand HNRC
HNRC composites
composites neatly
neatly showedshowed that
that the the HRFC
HRFC
material had
material hadvery
veryhigh
highyield
yieldstrength.
strength.Among
Amongthem, 3 mm
them, thickness
3 mm ply0◦orientation
of 0° of
thickness ply orientation
the deformation
the deformation isisvery
verylow,
low,and
andat at
thethe
same time,
same it can
time, be observed
it can that the
be observed thatstress–strain
the stress–strain
plot gives
plot gives an
anexcellent
excellentYoung
Youngmodulus
modulus value of 35.59
value GPa.
of 35.59 The The
GPa. tensile strength
tensile of 3 mm
strength of 3 mm
thickness was noted as 1188 GPa. The comparison between NRFC and
thickness was noted as 1188 GPa. The comparison between NRFC and HNRC results HNRC results is is
presented in Figure 19.
presented in Figure 19.

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Figure 24 of 28
18. Stress–strain graph comparison between (a) hybrid composite and (b) natural reinforced
Figure 18. Stress–strain graph comparison between (a) hybrid composite and (b) natural reinforced
fiber composite (Jute and Hybrid—2–4 mm).
fiber composite (Jute and Hybrid—2–4 mm).

Figure 19. Summarized results (Jute and Hybrid—2–4 mm).

Figure 19. Summarized results (Jute and Hybrid—2–4 mm).
6.2. Comparison with Results of All Cases (Natural Reinforced Fiber Composite Laminate and
Hybrid Composite)
The maximum deformation between NRFC and HNRC is 0.95 mm, and it is noted at
(HNRC) 0° with a 4 mm thickness of the laminate. The minimum deformation value is
0.105 mm, and it is noted at (NRFC) 45° with 2 mm thickness. All laminate results are
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 22 of 26

6.2. Comparison with Results of All Cases (Natural Reinforced Fiber Composite Laminate and
Hybrid Composite)
The maximum deformation between NRFC and HNRC is 0.95 mm, and it is noted
at (HNRC) 0◦ with a 4 mm thickness of the laminate. The minimum deformation value
is 0.105 mm, and it is noted at (NRFC) 45◦ with 2 mm thickness. All laminate results are
presented in Table 12.

Table 12. The total deformation (in mm) at various configurations 2–4 mm.

Description 0◦ Deformation 30◦ Deformation 45◦ Deformation

Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid
Jute Jute Jute
(J/G/J) (J/G/J) (J/G/J)
Thickness (2 mm) 0.897 0.274 0.95 0.543 0. 105 0.626
Thickness (3 mm) 0.594 0.237 0.646 0.414 0.713 0.488
Thickness (4 mm) 0.446 0.209 0.475 0.327 0.591 0.382

The maximum von Mises stress between NRFC and HNRC is 6124.26 Pa, and it is
noted at (HNRC) 0◦ with a 2 mm thickness of the laminate. The minimum von Mises stress
value is 1021.11 Pa, and it is noted at (NRFC) 0◦ with 4 mm thickness. All laminate results
are presented in Table 13.

Table 13. The total stresses (von Mises in Pa) at various configuration 2–4 mm.

Description 0◦ Maximum Stress 30◦ Maximum Stress 45◦ Maximum Stress

Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid
Jute Jute Jute
(J/G/J) (J/G/J) (J/G/J)
Thickness (2 mm) 2043.95 6124.26 2157.17 5247.63 2384.01 4860.69
Thickness (3 mm) 1362.15 5303.47 1502.57 4447.02 1650 3635.47
Thickness (4 mm) 1021.11 4679.5 1087.96 3946.65 1364 3257.8

The maximum strain between NRFC and HNRC is 0.631, and it is noted at (NRFC)
45◦ with a 2 mm thickness of the laminate. The minimum strain value is 0.131, and it is
noted at (HNRC) 0◦ with 4 mm thickness. All laminate results are presented in Table 14.

Table 14. The total strain at various configuration 2, 3, and 4 mm.

Description 0◦ Max. Von. Strain 30◦ Max. Von. Strain 45◦ Max. Von. Strain
Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid
Jute Jute Jute
(J/G/J) (J/G/J) (J/G/J)
Thickness (2 mm) 0.551 0.174 0.571 0.322 0.631 0.377
Thickness (3 mm) 0.367 0.149 0.477 0.256 0.522 0.295
Thickness (4 mm) 0.276 0.131 0.343 0.202 0.431 0.231

The maximum shear stress between NRFC and HNRC is 1188.39 Pa, and it is noted
at (HNRC) 45◦ with a 3 mm thickness of the laminate. The minimum shear stress value
is 79.67 Pa, and it is noted at (NRFC) 0◦ with 4 mm thickness. All laminate results are
presented in Table 15.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 23 of 26

Table 15. The total shear stresses (Pa) at various configuration 2–4 mm.

Description 0◦ Shear Stress (XY) 30◦ Shear Stress (XY) 45◦ Shear Stress (XY)
Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid
Jute Jute Jute
(J/G/J) (J/G/J) (J/G/J)
Thickness (2 mm) 155 332.824 591 356.55 798.2 437.1
Thickness (3 mm) 102.92 249.66 505 1141.73 467 1188.39
Thickness (4 mm) 79.67 198.755 322 215.69 498 277.711

Based on the Ansys results, the composite laminate is fabricated with different thick-
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of
nesses and is ready for laboratory testing. This material can be used for UAV structures.
The fabricated laminates are shown in Figure 20.

Figure 20. Fabricated

Figurelaminates: (a) natural
20. Fabricated jute
laminates: (a)fibers specimens;
natural (b) hybrid (b)
jute fibers specimens; natural
hybridcomposite
natural composite
specimens. specimens.

7. Limitations 7. Limitations
Indeed, this investigation
Indeed, this demonstrated
investigationthat HFRC laminates
demonstrated havelaminates
that HFRC significantly
havebetter
significantly b
mechanical properties than natural
ter mechanical jute fibers.
properties Despitejute
than natural this, thereDespite
fibers. are a few
this,limitations
there are athat
few limitatio
must be addressedthat in future
must research. The
be addressed simulation
in future model
research. The for HFRC laminates
simulation model formade HFRC lamina
of jute fibers and glassoffibers
made disregarded
jute fibers and glassthe effect
fibers of moisture
disregarded theabsorption as well absorption
effect of moisture as the as w
microbial degradation of fibers degradation
as the microbial over time [44]. However,
of fibers by chemically
over time [44]. However, treating fibers
by chemically treat
and modifying fibers
their surfaces, it is possible
and modifying to reduce
their surfaces, it ismoisture
possible toabsorption and microbial
reduce moisture absorption and m
degradation [45].crobial
Thesedegradation
issues can be [45]. These issues
addressed can beresearch
in future addressed in future research investigatio
investigations.

8. Conclusions 8.
and Future Work
Conclusions and Future Work
In this work, theInresearch
this work,is the
conducted
researchon materials of
is conducted ondifferent
materialsstrengths of strengths
of different various of vario
types of ply sequences
types ofconcerning thickness.
ply sequences The maximum
concerning thickness.stress, strain, deformation,
The maximum and
stress, strain, deformati
shear stress wereand shear stress
obtained were obtained
at different at different ply
ply configurations usingconfigurations
Ansys. Natural using Ansys. Natural re
reinforced
fiber composite forced
(Jute) isfiber composite
considered (Jute) is considered
a laminate 2 mm witha different
laminate ply2 mm with different
sequences, ply sequenc
and the
total number of and
pliesthe total
is 8. number
After of plies
assessing theissimulation
8. After assessing
results,the simulation
it was results,
found that it was found t
mechani-
mechanical
cal properties such as maximum properties
stresssuch as maximum
values are notedstress
in thevalues are noted
longitudinal in the longitudinal
direction with dir
tion with fiber various orientations. HFRC ◦
laminates, the results
fiber various orientations. HFRC laminates, the results of 0 ply orientation were noted as of 0° ply orientation w
noted as 0.274, 0.237, and 0.209 mm for 2–4 mm thickness,
0.274, 0.237, and 0.209 mm for 2–4 mm thickness, respectively. The other orientations and respectively. The other ori
ply sequences didtations and ply
not show sequences
positive didHowever,
results. not show at positive
45◦ plyresults. However,
orientation at 45°
at 3 mm ply orientati
thick-
at 3 mm thickness, the tensile strength, and deformation were noted as 1188 GPa a
0.237, respectively. Hybrid natural-fiber-reinforced composites have better mechani
properties than natural fibers, and the simulation results were analyzed at different co
figurations. The jute and glass fiber with epoxy resin composite is the best material a
mm thickness with 45° ply orientation. These hybrid composites can be used in wing co
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 24 of 26

ness, the tensile strength, and deformation were noted as 1188 GPa and 0.237, respectively.
Hybrid natural-fiber-reinforced composites have better mechanical properties than natural
fibers, and the simulation results were analyzed at different configurations. The jute and
glass fiber with epoxy resin composite is the best material at 3 mm thickness with 45◦ ply
orientation. These hybrid composites can be used in wing construction and sub parts of
spars, ribs, and also for skin in unmanned aerial vehicles.
The results from this study indicated that the material yield strength dramatically
increased when the material is a combination of natural fibers with synthetic fibers. There
is less deformation even in natural fibers; however, the material characteristic is identified
as yield strength, and the material has linier elastic behavior. Material strength depends
upon the fiber orientation. Nevertheless, with these results, the specimens have to be tested
at the laboratory. Finally, it has been concluded that natural hybrid composites are suitable
for the fabrication of prototype unmanned aerial vehicle structures based on simulation
results. The results of simulation and tests were proposed for future work to fabricate
the test specimens as per the ASTM standards. After analyzing the laboratory tests, this
material can be used for manufacturing in UAV applications.

Author Contributions: The basic conceptualization, R.K.; methodology, W.S.; software, M.S. and
R.K.; writing, R.K. and M.S.; review and editing, W.S. and M.S. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The authors gratefully acknowledges the financial support from the university, under the
excellence of project grants provided by the University (BKM_10/060/BKM22/2023). Department
of Fundamentals of Machinery Design, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Silesian University of
Technology, Gliwice, Poland. The research reported in this paper was also co-financed by the European
Union from the European Social Fund in the framework of the project “Silesian University of Technology
as a Center of Modern Education based on research and innovation” POWR.03.05.00-00-Z098/17.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express our thanks to the following researchers for
their contribution to the research and carrying out some of the preparatory work as part of Project-
Based Learning—the supervisors: Maciej Dyzia, Roman Niestrój, and the students: Adam Jabłoński,
Kamil Kalarus, Agnieszka G˛ebka, Maciej Znojkiewicz, Mateusz Duleba, Miłosz Kościelniak.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that there are no conflict of interest.

References
1. Faridul Hasan, K.M.; György Horváth, P.; Bak, M.; Alpár, T. A state-of-the-art review on coir fiber-reinforced bio-composites. R.
Soc. Chem. 2021, 11, 10548–10571.
2. Ali, L.M.; Ansari, M.N.M.; Pua, G.; Jawaid, M.; Islam, M.S. A review on natural fiber reinforced polymer composite and its
applications. Int. J. Polym. Sci. 2015, 2015, 243947.
3. Chandramohan, D.; Bharanichandar, J. Natural Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites for Automobile Accessories. Am. J. Environ.
Sci. 2013, 9, 494–504. [CrossRef]
4. Brischetto, S. Analysis of natural fibre composites for aerospace structures. Aircr. Eng. Aerosp. Technol. 2018, 9, 1372–1384.
[CrossRef]
5. Pickering, K. (Ed.) Properties and Performance of Natural-Fibre Composites; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2008.
6. Velasco-Parra, J.A.; Ramón-Valencia, B.A.; Mora-Espinosa, W.J. Mechanical characterization of jute fiber-based bio composite to
manufacture automotive components. J. Appl. Res. Technol. 2021, 19, 472–491. [CrossRef]
7. Textile Technology. Available online: https://www.textiletechnology.net/fibers/news/dnfi-stable-world-natural-fiber-
production-in-2022-32691 (accessed on 16 September 2022).
8. Pickering, K.L.; Efendy, M.G.A.; Le, T.M. A review of recent developments in natural fibre composites and their mechanical
performance. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2016, 83, 98–112. [CrossRef]
9. Saravanan, K.G.; Prabu, R.; Sivapragasam, A.; Daniel, N. Comparative Analysis of Natural Fibre Reinforced Composite Material
Using ANSYS. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 2021, 9391237. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 25 of 26

10. Ramli, N.; Mazalan, N.; Ando, Y. Natural fiber for green technology in automotive industry a brief review. In IOP Conference
Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Proceeding of the Wood and Biofiber International Conference (WOBIC 2017), Selangor, Malaysia,
21–23 November 2017; IOP Science: Bristol, UK, 2017.
11. Jayamani, E.; Hamdan, S.; Rezaur Rahman, K.G.; Bin Bakria, M.K. Comparative study of dielectric properties of hybrid natural
fiber composites. In Proceedings of the 12th Global Congress on Manufacturing and Management GCCM, Vellore, India,
8–10 December 2014.
12. Erden, S.; Ho, K. Fiber Reinforced Composite in Fiber Technology for Fiber Reinforced Composites; Woodhead Publishing Series in
Composites Science and Engineering; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2017; pp. 51–79.
13. Bale, J.; Boimau, K.; Nenobesi, M. Natural Composite Reinforced by Lontar (Borassus flabellifer) Fiber: An Experimental Study on
Open-Hole Tensile Strength. Int. J. Biomater. 2017, 2017, 7685047. [CrossRef]
14. Khan, M.A.; Hinrichsen, M.A.; Drzal, L.T. Influence of novel coupling agents on mechanical properties of jute reinforced
polypropylene composite. J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 2001, 20, 1711–1713. [CrossRef]
15. Saravana Bavan, D.; Mohan Kumar, G.C. Potential use of natural fiber composite materials in India. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2010,
29, 3600–3613. [CrossRef]
16. Liu, Z.; Wang, H.; Yang, L.; Du, J. Research on mechanical properties and durability of flax/glass fiber bio-hybrid FRP composites
laminates. Compos. Struct. 2022, 290, 115566. [CrossRef]
17. Shaik, A.A.; Pradhan, A.A.; Kotsthane, A.M.; Patil, S.; Karuppan, S. Comparative analysis of basalt/E-Glass/S2-fiberglass-carbon
fiber reinforced epoxy laminates suing finite element method. Mater. Today-Proc. 2022, 63, 630–638. [CrossRef]
18. Laurin, F.; Carrere, N.; Maire, J.-F. Laminated composite structures subjected to compressive loading: A material and structural
buckling analysis. Compos. Struct. 2007, 80, 172–182. [CrossRef]
19. Reichert, S.; Schwinn, T.; La Magna, R.; Waimer, F.; Knippers, J.; Menges, A. Fibrous structures: An integrative approach to design
computation, simulation and fabrication for lightweight, glass and carbon fibre composite structures in architecture based on
biomimetic design principles. Comput. Aided-Des. 2014, 52, 27–39. [CrossRef]
20. Ammarullah, M.I.; Santoso, G.; Sugiharto, S.; Supriyono, T.; Kurdi, O.; Tauviqirrahman, M.; Winarni, T.I.; Jamari, J. Tresca stress
study of CoCrMo-on-CoCrMo bearings based on body mass index using 2D computational model. J. Tribol. 2022, 33, 31–38.
21. Celino, A.; Freour, S.; Jacquemin, F.; Casari, P. The hygroscopic behavior of plant fibers: A review. Front. Chem. 2014, 1, 43.
[CrossRef]
22. Holbery, J.; Houston, D. Natural-fiber-reinforced polymer composites applications in automotive. JOM 2006, 58, 80–86. [CrossRef]
23. Adams, D.F.; Perry, J.L. Instrumented Charpy impact tests of several unidirectional composite materials. Fibre Sci. Technol. 1975, 8,
275–302. [CrossRef]
24. Adams, D.F.; Perry, J.L. Low level Charpy impact of graphite epoxy hybrid composites. J. Eng. Mater. Technol. ASME 1977, 99,
257–263. [CrossRef]
25. Pereira, A.C.; Monteiro, S.N.; de Assis, F.S.; Margem, F.M.; da Luz, F.S.; de Oliveira Braga, F. Charpy impact tenacity of epoxy
matrix composites reinforced with aligned jute fibers. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2017, 6, 312–316. [CrossRef]
26. Singh, H.; Inder, J.; Singh, P.; Singh, S.; Dhawan, V.; Tiwari, S.K. A brief review of jute fiber and its composites. Mater. Today Proc.
2018, 5, 28427–28437. [CrossRef]
27. EL-Wazerya, M.S.E.; EL-Elamya, M.I.E.; Zoalfakarb, S.H. Mechanical Properties of Glass Fiber Reinforced Polyester Composites.
Int. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. 2017, 14, 121–131.
28. Kabir, M.; Wang, H.; Lau, K.; Cardona, F. Chemical treatments on plant-based natural fibre reinforced polymer composites: An
overview. Compos. Part B Eng. 2012, 43, 2883–2892. [CrossRef]
29. Goumgh, A.; Assarara, M.; Zouaria, W.; Azouaouib, K.; El Mahic, A.; Ayada, R. Study of the fatigue behavior of hybrid
flax-glass/epoxy composites. Compos. Struct. 2022, 294, 115790. [CrossRef]
30. Mohantya, A.K.; Misraa, B.; Hinrichsen, G. Bio-fibres biodegradable polymers and bio-composites. Macromol. Mater. Eng. 2000,
276–277, 1–24. [CrossRef]
31. Stamboulisa, A.; Bailliea, C.A.; Peijsb, T. Effects of environmental conditions on mechanical and physical properties of flax fibers.
Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2001, 32, 1105–1115. [CrossRef]
32. Alawar, A.; Hamed, A.M.; Al-Kaabi, K. Characterization of treated date palm tree fiber as composite reinforcement. Compos. Part
B Eng. 2007, 40, 601–606. [CrossRef]
33. Alves, C.; Silva, A.; Reis, L.; Ferrão, P.; Freitas, M. Sustainable design of automotive components through jute fiber composites:
An integrated approach. New Trends Dev. Automot. Ind. 2011, 14, 223–254.
34. Fakirov, S.; Bhattacharyya, D. Homopolymers, blends and composites. In Engineering Biopolymers; Hanser Publishers: Munich,
Germany, 2007; ISBN 978-1-56990-405-3.
35. Nguyen, L.H.; Leassig, T.; Ryan, S. A methodology for hydrocode analysis of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene composite
under ballistic impact. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2016, 84, 224–235. [CrossRef]
36. Yen, C.F.; Caiazzo, A.A. Innovative Processing of Multifunctional Composite Armor for Ground Vehicles; Technical Report ARL-CR-484;
U.S. Army Research Laboratory ARL: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, USA, 2001.
37. Gama, B.A. A Progressive Composite Damage Model for Unidirectional and Woven Fabric; Newark Materials Sciences Corporation
(MSC): Canton, MI, USA; University of Delaware Center for Composite Materials (UD-CCM): Newark, DE, USA, 2015; No. 215.
38. Yen, C.F. A ballistic material model for continuous-fiber reinforced composites. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2012, 46, 11–22. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 15992 26 of 26

39. Hassan, M.; Mahnaz, Z. Strain-rate-dependent progressive damage modelling of UHMWPE composite laminate subjected to
impact loading. Int. J. Damage Mech. 2021, 31, 1–31.
40. Serra-Parareda, F.; Vilaseca, F.; Aguado, R.; Espinach, F.X.; Tarrés, Q.; Delgado-Aguilar, M. Effective Young’s Modulus Estimation
of Natural Fibers through Micromechanical Models: The Case of Henequen Fibers Reinforced-PP Composites. Polymers 2021,
1322, 3947. [CrossRef]
41. Mitra, B.C. Environment friendly composite material: Bio composite and Green Composite. Déf. Sci. J. 2014, 64, 244–261.
42. Abilash, N.; Sivapragash, M. Environmental benefits of eco-friendly natural fiber reinforced polymeric composite materials. Int. J.
Appl. Innov. Eng. Manag. 2013, 2, 53–59.
43. Ammarullah, M.I.; Santoso, G.; Sugiharto, S.; Supriyono, T.; Wibowo, D.B.; Kurdi, O.; Tauviqirrahman, M.; Jamari, J. Minimizing
Risk of Failure from Ceramic-on-Ceramic Total Hip Prosthesis by Selecting Ceramic Materials Based on Tresca Stress. Sustainability
2022, 14, 13413. [CrossRef]
44. Hodzic, A.; Shanks, R. Natural Fibre Composites: Materials, Processes and Properties; Woodhead Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2014;
ISBN 0857099221.
45. Ku, H.; Wang, H.; Pattarachaiyakoop, N.; Trada, M. A review on the tensile properties of natural fiber reinforced polymer
composites. Compos. Part B Eng. 2011, 42, 856–873. [CrossRef]