Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
2
Johannes Kepler Universita€t Linz, Institut fu€r Chemie der Polymere (ICP), Leonding, Austria
Among the synthetic fibers, glass fibers (GF) are most All the data are taken from scientific literature or mate-
widely used in thermoplastic short-fiber-reinforced rial data sheets provided by the suppliers. For better com-
polymers (SFRP), as they offer good strength and stiff-
ness, impact resistance, chemical resistance, and ther-
parability only data of injection molded specimens (or
mal stability at a low price. Carbon fibers (CF) are compression molded specimens, when no literature on
applied instead of GF, when highest stiffness is injection molded specimens is available) are included.
required. Other types of synthetic fibers like aramid Due to the lack of data concerning the fiber-reinforcement
(AF), basalt (BF), polyacrylonitrile (PAN-F), polyethylene of other thermoplastic materials, a comparison of various
terephthalate (PET-F), or polypropylene fibers (PP-F)
are rarely used in SFRP, although they offer some
fiber types could be done only for SFRPP. For comparison
advantages compared with GF. The aim of this article of material property data, the Ashby plot [1] was chosen
is, to give an overview of various fiber types with as means of presentation. Plots as tensile strength versus
regard to their mechanical properties, densities, and tensile modulus for reinforcing fibers, matrix polymers,
prices as well as the performance of their thermoplas- and fiber-reinforced composites are included in this over-
tic composites. The mechanical properties are pre-
sented as Ashby plots of tensile strength versus
view. Because of the growing interest in fiber-reinforced
tensile modulus, both in absolute and specific (abso- materials for lightweight structural design, Ashby plots for
lute value divided by density) values. This overview specific property values are illustrated, too.
also focuses on modification of fiber/matrix interac-
tion, as interfacial adhesion has a huge impact on
composite performance. A summary of established FIBERS
methods for characterization of fibers, polymers, and
composites completes this article. POLYM. COMPOS., This overview focuses on synthetic fibers used for
35:227–236, 2014. V C 2013 Society of Plastics Engineers reinforcing thermoplastic matrices. For comparison, prop-
erties of CeF are included, too. Throughout this article,
the term “synthetic fibers” refers to AF, BF, CF, and GF.
INTRODUCTION Other man-made fibers based on noncellulosic materials
like PAN, PET, and PP are rarely used in SFRP and only
Short-fiber-reinforced polymers (SFRP) (see Table 1 included for comparison. When mentioned, these fibers
for abbreviations) have become more and more popular are referred to as PAN-F, PET-F, and PP-F, respectively.
in various application fields like automotive or building The term “CeF” includes plant-based fibers (e.g. jute,
and construction industry, as they combine the advantages hemp, kenaf, sisal, flax, and wood) and man-made fibers
of polymers like good impact resistance and low weight based on cellulosic material (e.g. Kraft pulp, unbleached
with the high stiffness and strength of reinforcing fibers. cellulose, regenerate cellulose).
Ease of processing, low price, and worldwide accessibility Synthetic fibers outperform CeF in their mechanical
make thermoplastic SFRP suitable for mass production. properties (see Fig. 1) and show less variation in product
quality. Another advantage of synthetic fibers is their bet-
ter thermal stability, which allows higher processing tem-
peratures, while CeF are known to show a strong
Correspondence to: Christoph Unterweger; decrease of mechanical properties under the influence of
e-mail: c.unterweger@kplus-wood.at
DOI 10.1002/pc.22654
high temperatures [2, 3]. CeF also offer an advantage in
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). terms of processing behavior, as they are known to cause
C 2013 Society of Plastics Engineers
V less equipment wear [2, 4].
POLYMER COMPOSITES—2014
TABLE 1. Abbreviations used in the text.
Abbreviation Explanation
AF Aramid fibers
AFM Atomic force microscopy
BF Basalt fibers
CeF Cellulose-based fibers
CF Carbon fibers
DMA Dynamic mechanical analysis
DSC Differential scanning calorimetry
EP Epoxy resin
GF Glass fibers
IFSS Interfacial shear strength
PA Polyamide
PAN-F Polyacrylonitrile fibers
PE-HD Polyethylene high density
PE-LD Polyethylene low density FIG. 1. Ashby plot presenting absolute tensile strength versus tensile
PEEK Polyether ether ketone modulus for various fiber types. [Color figure can be viewed in the
PET Polyethylene terephthalate online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
PET-F Polyethylene terephthalate fibers
PP Polypropylene
However, prices of dosable natural fibers and man-made
PP-F Polypropylene fibers
PPS Polyphenylene sulfide cellulose fibers are usually in the range or slightly above
PS Polystyrene the price levels of PP and GF [37]. In contrast to some
PSU Polysulfone reports that BF are cheaper than GF [40–42], actual mar-
PUR Polyurethane ket prices for short GF are much lower than for BF. The
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
most expensive fibers are AF and CF with prices ranging
SEM Scanning electron microscopy
SFFT Single fiber fragmentation test from 20 to 40 e/kg for common types and 80 to 103 e/kg
SFPT Single fiber pull-out test for the most expensive types with special coatings.
SFRP Short-fiber-reinforced polymers To illustrate the mechanical properties of various fiber
SFRPP Short-fiber-reinforced polypropylene types, Ashby plots of tensile strength versus tensile modu-
TEM Transmission electron microscopy
lus were chosen. Ultra-high modulus carbon fibers were
TGA Thermogravimetric analysis
wt% Weight percent not included as no literature for the use of these fibers in
XPS X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy thermoplastic composites was found. All data were taken
XRD X-ray diffraction from the references indicated in Table 3. Due to their var-
iability of mechanical properties, reported minimum and
maximum values were used for natural fibers. For man-
Table 2 provides some general information on the den- made fibers, which are known to meet quite narrow toler-
sities and current prices of the various materials included ances for a specific grade, arithmetic mean values were
in this overview. The significant differences of synthetic used.
fibers in comparison with CeF are apparent from Table 2. Figure 1 shows that CF exhibit the highest tensile
The densities of synthetic fibers are higher with a wide modulus and tensile strength with values ranging from
range from 1.40 to 2.80 g/cm3 versus 1.30 to 1.55 g/cm3
for CeF. Only the little used PAN-F, PET-F, and PP-F
have lower densities than CeF. Furthermore, the prices
for synthetic fibers are higher than that for natural fibers.
[2, 13, 14, 16–18] [2, 7, 8, 14, 16, 22, 25, 30] [2, 7, 8, 14, 16, 25–28] [2, 7, 8, 14, 16, 22, 25, 30, 43] [32] [34] [35] [2, 37, 38, 44–46]
210 to 240 GPa and 2,000 to 4,900 MPa, respectively. mers presented here, with PP and PE-HD showing similar
Next in line in terms of stiffness are AF with tensile mod- properties and both outperforming PE-LD. All other poly-
ulus values ranging from 62 to 160 GPa. The quite nar- mers show comparable performance with strength and
row margin of tensile strength values from 2,920 to 3,600 modulus values for all polymers varying over wide
MPa is approximately in the middle of the wider ranging ranges. In terms of specific properties the polyolefins
values for GF and CF. In terms of absolute tensile modu- almost close the gap to the other polymers due to their
lus values GF are at the lower end of the corresponding lower densities. As can be seen in Fig. 4, PP even reaches
values for AF. BF show tensile modulus values similar to the lower bound values of PVC and PET. These good
GF, but are slightly outperformed in terms of tensile specific properties in combination with its low price and
strength. Compared with synthetic fibers, CeF exhibit ease of processing constitute PPs predominance among
lower tensile modulus and tensile strength values, with the matrix polymers. The prices for primary thermoplastic
only kenaf and hemp reaching modulus values similar to matrix materials are illustrated in Table 5. Much lower
those of BF and GF. Tensile properties of PAN-F are at prices can be found for recycled polymers [11].
the lower end of the range of CeF. The lowest modulus
values are found for PET-F and PP-F. As fiber densities
FIBER/MATRIX INTERACTION
range from 0.90 to 2.80 g/cm3, there are differences
between the absolute values illustrated in Fig. 1 and the The properties of the composites mostly depend on the
specific values in Fig. 2. fiber and matrix properties, along with interfacial adhe-
sion. A good interfacial adhesion guarantees an effective
POLYMER MATRICES transfer of stress from the matrix to the reinforcing fiber
[74].
The mechanical properties of composite materials not One concept for describing interfacial adhesion is the
only depend on the reinforcing fibers, but also on the calculation of the critical fiber length. If the fiber length
matrix polymer. Therefore, tensile properties of com- is shorter than the critical value, the fiber is pulled out
monly used thermoplastic polymers like PP, PE-HD, PE- from the matrix due to tension force, and the composite
LD, PA6, PA6.6, PET, PVC, and PS as well as EP, the tensile strength is mainly determined by the interfacial
most widely used thermoset, are presented. As density adhesion. If the fiber length is longer than the critical
values range from 0.90 to 1.40 g/cm3 (Table 5) absolute value, the fiber is broken and the strength of the compos-
(Fig. 3) and specific tensile properties (Fig. 4) are illus- ite is determined by the fiber tensile strength [30].
trated in Ashby plots. All data were taken from the refer- As fiber length is dramatically reduced during process-
ences indicated in Table 4. ing of SFRP, the critical fiber length must be decreased
Figure 3 shows that with regard to absolute properties by promoting the interfacial adhesion [61]. To ensure
polyolefin matrix polymers are inferior to all other poly- appropriate interfacial interaction, fibers are usually
FIG. 3. Ashby plot presenting absolute tensile strength versus tensile FIG. 4. Ashby plot presenting specific tensile strength versus specific
modulus for various matrix polymers. [Color figure can be viewed in tensile modulus for various matrix polymers. [Color figure can be viewed
the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.] in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
TABLE 4. References for the tensile property data of the various matrix polymers presented in Figures 3 and 4.
PE PP PET PA PVC PS EP
[47–53] [5–8, 10, 54–57] [40, 58–60] [14, 61–65] [66–68] [69–71] [14, 72, 73]
TABLE 6. References for the tensile property data of SFRPP presented in Fig. 5.
[5, 6, 10, 54–57] [13] [41, 117] [25, 118, 119] [6, 25, 54, 111, 120–124] [125] [13] [45, 126–132]
16. A.K. Bledzki and J. Gassan, Prog. Polym. Sci., 24, 221 44. J.J. Maya and R.D. Anandjiwala, Polym. Compos., 29, 187
(1999). (2007).
17. Teijin Aramid. Comparing aramids (2012).http://www.teiji- 45. G. Kalaprasad, K. Joseph, S. Thomas, and C. Pavithran, J.
naramid.com/aramids/comparing-aramids/. Last accessed on Mater. Sci., 32, 4261 (1997).
September 12, 2013. 46. Datasheet, Tencel, Lenzing AG.