Synthetic Fibers and Thermoplastic
Short-Fiber-Reinforced Polymers: Properties
and Characterization
Christoph Unterweger,1 Oliver Bru
€ ggemann,2 Christian Fu
€ rst1
1
Kompetenzzentrum Holz GmbH (Wood K plus), Division of Wood Polymer Composites, Linz, Austria
2
Johannes Kepler Universita€t Linz, Institut fu€r Chemie der Polymere (ICP), Leonding, Austria
Among the synthetic fibers, glass fibers (GF) are most
widely used in thermoplastic short-fiber-reinforced
polymers (SFRP), as they offer good strength and stiff-
ness, impact resistance, chemical resistance, and ther-
mal stability at a low price. Carbon fibers (CF) are
applied instead of GF, when highest stiffness is
required. Other types of synthetic fibers like aramid
(AF), basalt (BF), polyacrylonitrile (PAN-F), polyethylene
terephthalate (PET-F), or polypropylene fibers (PP-F)
are rarely used in SFRP, although they offer some
advantages compared with GF. The aim of this article
is, to give an overview of various fiber types with
regard to their mechanical properties, densities, and
prices as well as the performance of their thermoplas-
tic composites. The mechanical properties are pre-
sented as Ashby plots of tensile strength versus
tensile modulus, both in absolute and specific (abso-
lute value divided by density) values. This overview
also focuses on modification of fiber/matrix interac-
tion, as interfacial adhesion has a huge impact on
composite performance. A summary of established
methods for characterization of fibers, polymers, and
composites completes this article. POLYM. COMPOS.,
35:227–236, 2014. V C 2013 Society of Plastics Engineers
INTRODUCTION
Short-fiber-reinforced polymers (SFRP) (see Table 1
for abbreviations) have become more and more popular
in various application fields like automotive or building
and construction industry, as they combine the advantages
of polymers like good impact resistance and low weight
with the high stiffness and strength of reinforcing fibers.
Ease of processing, low price, and worldwide accessibility
make thermoplastic SFRP suitable for mass production.
Correspondence to: Christoph Unterweger;
e-mail: c.unterweger@kplus-wood.at
DOI 10.1002/pc.22654
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
C 2013 Society of Plastics Engineers
V less equipment wear [2, 4].
POLYMER COMPOSITES—2014
All the data are taken from scientific literature or mate-
rial data sheets provided by the suppliers. For better com-
parability only data of injection molded specimens (or
compression molded specimens, when no literature on
injection molded specimens is available) are included.
Due to the lack of data concerning the fiber-reinforcement
of other thermoplastic materials, a comparison of various
fiber types could be done only for SFRPP. For comparison
of material property data, the Ashby plot [1] was chosen
as means of presentation. Plots as tensile strength versus
tensile modulus for reinforcing fibers, matrix polymers,
and fiber-reinforced composites are included in this over-
view. Because of the growing interest in fiber-reinforced
materials for lightweight structural design, Ashby plots for
specific property values are illustrated, too.
FIBERS
This overview focuses on synthetic fibers used for
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.
Other man-made fibers based on noncellulosic materials
like PAN, PET, and PP are rarely used in SFRP and only
included for comparison. When mentioned, these fibers
are referred to as PAN-F, PET-F, and PP-F, respectively.
The term “CeF” includes plant-based fibers (e.g. jute,
hemp, kenaf, sisal, flax, and wood) and man-made fibers
based on cellulosic material (e.g. Kraft pulp, unbleached
cellulose, regenerate cellulose).
Synthetic fibers outperform CeF in their mechanical
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
decrease of mechanical properties under the influence of
high temperatures [2, 3]. CeF also offer an advantage in
terms of processing behavior, as they are known to cause
 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.

TABLE 2. Densities and prices of PP and various synthetic and

cellulose-based fibers.

Material Density (g/cm3) Price (e/kg)

PP 0.90–0.92 [5–10] 1.3 [11]

AF 1.39–1.46 [2, 6, 12–18] 20–80 [19]
BF 2.56–2.80 [20–23] 4.0–6.0 [24]
CF 1.70–1.80 [2, 7, 8, 14, 15, 25–28] 23–36 [29]
GF 2.50–2.70 [7, 8, 14–16, 22, 25, 30] 1.0–1.5 [31]
PAN-F 1.18 [32] 5.0–7.0 [33]
PET-F 1.38 [13, 34]
PP-F 0.91 [35] 3.0–6.0 [36] FIG. 2. Ashby plot presenting specific tensile strength versus specific
CeF 1.30–1.55 [15, 16, 37–39] 0.3–1.5 [37] tensile modulus for various fiber types. [Color figure can be viewed in
the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

228 POLYMER COMPOSITES—2014 DOI 10.1002/pc

 TABLE 3. References for the tensile property data of fibers presented in Figs. 1 and 2.
AF BF CF
[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]
210 to 240 GPa and 2,000 to 4,900 MPa, respectively.
Next in line in terms of stiffness are AF with tensile mod-
ulus values ranging from 62 to 160 GPa. The quite nar-
row margin of tensile strength values from 2,920 to 3,600
MPa is approximately in the middle of the wider ranging
values for GF and CF. In terms of absolute tensile modu-
lus values GF are at the lower end of the corresponding
values for AF. BF show tensile modulus values similar to
GF, but are slightly outperformed in terms of tensile
strength. Compared with synthetic fibers, CeF exhibit
lower tensile modulus and tensile strength values, with
only kenaf and hemp reaching modulus values similar to
those of BF and GF. Tensile properties of PAN-F are at
the lower end of the range of CeF. The lowest modulus
values are found for PET-F and PP-F. As fiber densities
range from 0.90 to 2.80 g/cm3, there are differences
between the absolute values illustrated in Fig. 1 and the
specific values in Fig. 2.
POLYMER MATRICES
The mechanical properties of composite materials not
only depend on the reinforcing fibers, but also on the
matrix polymer. Therefore, tensile properties of com-
monly used thermoplastic polymers like PP, PE-HD, PE-
LD, PA6, PA6.6, PET, PVC, and PS as well as EP, the
most widely used thermoset, are presented. As density
values range from 0.90 to 1.40 g/cm3 (Table 5) absolute
(Fig. 3) and specific tensile properties (Fig. 4) are illus-
trated in Ashby plots. All data were taken from the refer-
ences indicated in Table 4.
Figure 3 shows that with regard to absolute properties
polyolefin matrix polymers are inferior to all other poly-
FIG. 3. Ashby plot presenting absolute tensile strength versus tensile
modulus for various matrix polymers. [Color figure can be viewed in
the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
DOI 10.1002/pc
GF PAN-F PET-F PP-F CeF
[32] [34] [35] [2, 37, 38, 44–46]
mers presented here, with PP and PE-HD showing similar
properties and both outperforming PE-LD. All other poly-
mers show comparable performance with strength and
modulus values for all polymers varying over wide
ranges. In terms of specific properties the polyolefins
almost close the gap to the other polymers due to their
lower densities. As can be seen in Fig. 4, PP even reaches
the lower bound values of PVC and PET. These good
specific properties in combination with its low price and
ease of processing constitute PPs predominance among
the matrix polymers. The prices for primary thermoplastic
matrix materials are illustrated in Table 5. Much lower
prices can be found for recycled polymers [11].
FIBER/MATRIX INTERACTION
The properties of the composites mostly depend on the
fiber and matrix properties, along with interfacial adhe-
sion. A good interfacial adhesion guarantees an effective
transfer of stress from the matrix to the reinforcing fiber
[74].
One concept for describing interfacial adhesion is the
calculation of the critical fiber length. If the fiber length
is shorter than the critical value, the fiber is pulled out
from the matrix due to tension force, and the composite
tensile strength is mainly determined by the interfacial
adhesion. If the fiber length is longer than the critical
value, the fiber is broken and the strength of the compos-
ite is determined by the fiber tensile strength [30].
As fiber length is dramatically reduced during process-
ing of SFRP, the critical fiber length must be decreased
by promoting the interfacial adhesion [61]. To ensure
appropriate interfacial interaction, fibers are usually
FIG. 4. Ashby plot presenting specific tensile strength versus specific
tensile modulus for various matrix polymers. [Color figure can be viewed
in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
POLYMER COMPOSITES—2014 229
coated with a sizing containing a coupling agent. Fiber TABLE 5. Densities and current market prices of thermoplastic
sizings are available for certain kinds of polymers. CF are polymers.
available with sizings for composites with PA, PUR, EP,
Material Density (g/cm3) Price (e/kg)
or high-temperature polymers like PSU, PPS, and PEEK
[75]. AF are available with PUR and PET sizings [12]. PE-HD 0.94–0.96 [9, 47–51] 1.29–1.35 [11]
As GF are much cheaper and more widely used, there is PE-LD 0.91–0.93 [9, 52, 53] 1.27–1.35 [11]
a larger variety of sizings available, including even siz- PP 0.90–0.92 [5–10] 1.29–1.34 [11]
PET 1.34–1.39 [58, 59] 1.38–1.50 [11]
ings for PP and PE matrices [76]. The coupling agents in
PA6 1.12–1.14 [9, 61, 62] 2.45–2.65 [11]
GF sizings are usually silane-based with functional groups PA6.6 1.13–1.15 [9, 14, 65] 3.10–3.20 [11]
varying, depending on the matrix polymer used [30, 61, PVC 1.36–1.39 [66–68] 1.16–1.30 [11]
76]. The same coupling agents can be used for BF. PS 1.04–1.08 [9, 69–71] 1.46–1.63 [11]
Ref. 61 reports a comparison of silane-based coupling
agents in PA/BF composites.
Often an additional coupling agent is used to further cation. In these so-called self-reinforced polymeric mate-
improve interaction between fiber and matrix. The most rials the same polymer forms both the matrix and the
commonly used coupling agents, especially in polyolefin- reinforcing phases. Because of the identical chemical
based composites, are maleic anhydride grafted deriva- nature of the matrix and the filler, exceptional interfacial
tives of the matrix polymer. These coupling agents are adhesion is obtained in these composites [98–101].
known to work very well in glass-fiber reinforced materi-
als, but are used in combination with other fiber types,
too [6, 9, 41, 44, 77–81]. Ref. 41 describes the production
of coupling agents by grafting maleic anhydride onto PROCESSING
C5C bonds containing hydrocarbon molecules like sun- As extrusion is the preferred compounding technique,
flower oil, linoleic acid, or glycerine monooleate. most research is focused on using twin screw extruders for
Beside the use of coupling agents, the fiber/matrix inter- preparation of SFRP compounds [7, 8, 25, 26, 30, 40, 61,
action can be improved by fiber surface modification. The 102–107]. For research in smaller scale, kneaders (labora-
physical interaction can be improved by increasing the tory internal mixers) are used quite frequently. In order to
roughness of the fiber. Ref. 74 describes a method for sur- reduce fiber breakage during compounding usually the
face treatment of CF with ammonia solution, while Ref. 82 polymer is fed into the equipment first and the fibers are
depicts roughening of AF surface by bromination. added to the melted polymer [27, 28, 41, 79, 108].
More widely used methods aim at the functionalization Specimens for mechanical testing are generally produced
of the fiber surface. For AF and CF acidic oxidation [83– by injection molding [7, 8, 25, 26, 30, 40, 54, 61, 102, 103,
87], fluorination [87, 88], and plasma treatment [27, 89– 106, 109–111], but also literature on hot-pressing and com-
92] are described. For CF also ozone treatment [93] or pression molding techniques can be found [13, 27, 28, 108].
electrochemical oxidation [85, 87] are used. Preparation For self-reinforced polymeric materials these conven-
of CF containing acidic or basic surface functionalities by tional techniques usually cannot be used, because of the
different heating and oxidation programs is described in similar melting temperatures of the matrix polymer and
Refs. 94 and 95. Ref. 82 reports the reaction of AF with the filler. Various methods for processing of these materi-
dimethyl sulfoxide and NaH followed by the coupling of als are described in Refs. 98 and 99.
bromoacetic acid or epichlorohydrin onto the fiber sur- Shearing stress during compounding and injection
face. Surfaces of BF and GF are usually modified by cou- molding causes a reduction of fiber length to a few 100
pling of silanes [61]. mm, almost regardless of the initial length [61]. Due to
Before a certain surface treatment method can be increased fiber-fiber interaction and fiber-equipment wall
applied, the sizing should be removed. This can be contact, fiber length decreases with increasing fiber con-
achieved by annealing [61] or by washing with acetone tent [7, 8, 25, 30, 54, 65, 109–111] and decreasing fiber
[83, 96, 97]. What must be considered is that the sizing diameter [54, 65]. Furthermore, process parameters (e.g.
not only includes a coupling agent but several other com- screw speed, processing temperature, injection speed)
ponents protecting the fibers and assuring processability. influence the fiber length distribution as well as the fiber
In the last couple of years a new family of composite orientation distribution, which have a huge impact on the
materials emerged, which exhibits excellent interfacial mechanical properties of the composite [30, 112–114].
adhesion without any coupling agents or surface modifi- Changes in fiber diameter during processing are not

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]

230 POLYMER COMPOSITES—2014 DOI 10.1002/pc


FIG. 5. Ashby plot presenting absolute tensile strength versus tensile
modulus for SFRPP. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue,
which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
reported for synthetic fibers, decreasing diameters of nat-
ural fibers can be observed [114–116].
COMPOSITES
Tensile Properties
The fiber and matrix materials used have a main influ-
ence on mechanical properties of SFRP. Nevertheless,
other parameters like interfacial adhesion, fiber length,
and processing conditions affect the performance of
SFRP. Therefore, superior fiber properties are not always
reflected in composite properties.
Strength and modulus of polymers generally increase
when fibers are added, while the elongation is drastically
reduced. With increasing fiber content the composite
properties further follow these trends, even though a
decrease in strength is reported at high fiber contents
[109, 110].
As most scientific literature could be found on tensile
properties, an Ashby plot of tensile strength versus tensile
modulus is chosen for comparison of composite proper-
ties. Studies on correlation between tensile and flexural
properties are reported in Refs. 54 and 65. To reduce the
influence of processing parameters, only data obtained
from injection molded specimen of composites with fiber
contents between 20 and 40 wt% are illustrated in the
Ashby plot below. However, since no such data were
available for PP/AF, PP/BF, and PP/PET-F, data of com-
pression molded specimen are used for these materials.
No suitable data are available for short PP-F (due to the
similar melting temperatures of the matrix and the fiber,
all-PP composites cannot be processed using conventional
TABLE 6. References for the tensile property data of SFRPP presented in Fig. 5.
Neat PP AF BF CF
[5, 6, 10, 54–57] [13] [41, 117] [25, 118, 119]
DOI 10.1002/pc
techniques). The absolute properties are shown in Fig. 5,
specific properties are not illustrated, as composite den-
sities vary in a quite narrow range around 1 g/cm3. All
data were taken from the references indicated in Table 6.
In accordance to the fiber properties, PP/CF compo-
sites show by far the highest tensile modulus values.
Nevertheless, in terms of strength PP/CF composites are
surpassed by most GF composites, although the strengths
of these fiber types are very similar. This can be attrib-
uted to more optimized fiber/matrix adhesion and proc-
essing conditions in PP/GF. In contrast to this general
trend, Ref. 25 reports a comparison of PP/CF and PP/GF
processed and tested under identical conditions with CF
composites showing higher strength and modulus. In
accordance with fiber properties, tensile strain is higher in
GF composites.
The most surprising results are the poor properties of
PP/BF composites. While BF show mechanical properties
comparable to those of GF, their composites with PP are
outperformed by all fiber types, with specific strength
even inferior to neat PP. But, what must be considered is,
that data for PP/BF composites are based on only two
reported sources, with fiber content being on the lower
limit of 20 wt% and specimens being produced by com-
pression molding. Nevertheless, from the reported proper-
ties it is obvious, that fiber/matrix interaction in PP/BF
composites is very poor. Similar results can be found in
Ref. 40, where GF and BF composites with PET matrix
are compared. With addition of BF the tensile strength is
little increased compared with the pure matrix, but there
is a significant improvement in tensile strength with
increasing GF content. A reinforcing effect of BF can be
observed in flexural strength as well as in tensile and
flexural modulus, although they are still inferior com-
pared with the corresponding PET/GF composites. Rein-
forcement of PA6 with BF is reported in Ref. 61. Using
coupling agents developed for PA/GF composites, rein-
forcement with BF results in a massive improvement in
strength and modulus.
As only data of compression molded specimens are
available for PP/AF and PP/PET-F composites [13], it is
difficult to make a statement about their mechanical per-
formance compared with other SFRPP. Nevertheless, in
comparison with other composites investigated in the same
study [13], PP/AF composites show the best mechanical
properties, outperforming PP/GF and PP/Sisal in terms of
tensile strength and modulus as well as maximum strain.
PP/PET-F composites show modulus and strength values
slightly above PP/Sisal, but inferior to PP/AF and PP/GF. In
terms of maximum strain PP/PET-F composites clearly out-
perform PP/AF, PP/GF and PP/Sisal.
GF PAN-F PET-F CeF
[6, 25, 54, 111, 120–124] [125] [13] [45, 126–132]
POLYMER COMPOSITES—2014 231
 Performance of CeF composites is in accordance with
the respective fiber properties. Slight improvements in
strength and modulus can be observed with upper bound
values of PP/CeF overlapping with the lower end of PP/
GF composites. Surprisingly good properties can be found
for PP/PAN-F with tensile strength being superior to PP/
CF and PP/CeF.
Impact Properties
Due to the variety of instrumental setups and test con-
ditions as well as the wide ranging values for impact
properties of matrix polymers, it is difficult to give a
comprehensive overview of the impact behavior of vari-
ous fiber types. Ref. 37 compares the unnotched Charpy
impact strength of various CeF-based PP composites, PP/
GF and neat PP. While PP/GF composites outperform all
but one PP/CeF composites, they do not reach the impact
strength of unnotched PP specimens. Ref. 13 reports
notched Izod impact strengths of PP reinforced with vari-
ous fiber types at 125 and 230 C. GF are superior to
CeF, but are clearly surpassed by AF and PET-F at
125 C. Contrary to AF and PET-F, GF completely retain
their impact strength at 230 C. Higher notched Charpy
impact strength is reported for PP/GF compared with PP/
CF [7]. The highest impact strengths (Charpy notched
and unnotched) of SFRPP could be found for PP/PAN-F
composites [125].
CHARACTERIZATION
Mechanical Properties
Tensile (EN ISO 527, ASTM D-638 M), flexural (EN
ISO 178, EN ISO 14125, ASTM D-790 M), and impact
testing (EN ISO 179, EN ISO 180, ASTM D-256) accord-
ing to standard methods are used to analyze mechanical
properties of composites and matrix polymers, although
most data can be found on tensile properties. Fibers are
generally characterized by their tensile strength and ten-
sile modulus.
Fiber/Matrix Interaction
A common method is to derive information on interfa-
cial adhesion from macroscopic composite properties like
tensile strength, impact strength or water absorption.
However, since such composite properties are influenced
by other factors as well (e.g. fiber orientation, process-
ing), their validity to evaluate interfacial adhesion is lim-
ited. To overcome this shortage, various micromechanical
techniques to measure IFSS directly have been developed.
An overview of various micromechanical test methods is
given in Ref. 133. SFPT and SFFT, the most common
micro-mechanical test methods, are described in detail in
Ref. 134. In SFPT the force to pull a single fiber out of
the matrix is measured. Beside this force (F), the embed-
232 POLYMER COMPOSITES—2014
ded length (L) and the fiber diameter (df) are required for
the calculation of the IFSS [IFSS 5 F/(df 3 p 3 L)].
Knowing the single fiber tensile strength (rf), the critical
fiber length [Lc 5 (df 3 rf)/(2 3 IFSS)] can be calcu-
lated. The embedded length must be kept low (shorter
than Lc) in order to achieve debonding and not fiber
breakage [7, 25, 40, 55, 74, 77, 103, 106, 134–137]. In
the SFFT a single fiber is embedded in a dumbbell-
shaped specimen, which is subjected to a tensile load.
The loading process continues until the fiber fragments
are so short that the induced stress no longer reaches the
fiber tensile strength and the fiber fragmentation process
ceases. The critical fiber length is obtained from the lon-
gest fragment length. Refs. 77, 134, and 135 compare
results of micromechanical tests with the mechanical
properties of actual composites. It is important to choose
an adequate test configuration, where stress distribution is
similar to that in the real composite [133].
The fiber/matrix interaction can also be characterized
by SEM images of fracture surfaces. Proper adhesion can
be identified by good wetting of the fiber and little or no
pull-out holes, while separation of fiber and matrix is
visible in case of weak interfacial bonding [8, 25, 41, 56,
61, 79, 88]. In Ref. 138 the critical fiber length is calcu-
lated from SEM images of fracture surfaces. The 10 max-
imum lengths of pulled out fibers are averaged as half of
the critical fiber length.
Also Raman spectroscopy is used to quantify interfacial
adhesion. The method is based on the shift of the Raman
peaks to lower frequency when the fiber is subjected to an
applied strain. Raman spectroscopy is mostly used for CF
[72, 139, 140], but also studies on AF are reported [141].
Fiber Length and Diameter
Before the fiber length in a composite can be meas-
ured, the matrix polymer has to be removed. Two meth-
ods can be found in scientific literature. In case of fibers
with sufficient thermal stability, the matrix polymer can
easily be removed by pyrolysis at 400 to 600 C for sev-
eral hours [7, 8, 25, 30, 54, 55, 61, 102, 103, 105, 107,
109–111, 142, 143]. In Ref. 142 an explicit embrittlement
of GF during pyrolysis was detected, which may cause
fiber degradation in following handling steps.
If fibers with insufficient thermal stability (e.g. CeF or
AF) or polymers that leave a carbon residue are used, the
matrix has to be removed by extraction using an appropri-
ate solvent. In Refs. 40 and [106], BF and GF were
recovered from PET composites by dissolving the matrix
in a mixture of phenol (60 wt%) and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-
ethane (40 wt%). PA6.6 can be removed from composites
with CF by dissolution in formic acid [144]. Polyolefin
matrices are usually removed by extraction in boiling
xylene [78, 114, 115, 145].
Fiber length can be measured by optical microscopy
[7, 8, 25, 30, 40, 54, 55, 61, 85, 102, 103, 105, 106, 109–
111, 115, 143] and SEM or TEM for very small fibers
DOI 10.1002/pc
like vapor-grown CF [104, 107, 146]. To achieve an
adequate fiber length distribution, usually a few hundred
fibers are analyzed. Use of automatically measurement
systems is described in Refs. 78, 104, and 114.
All the methods mentioned above can also be used for
measuring fiber diameters. However, measurements of
fiber diameter are normally just performed, when the
exact diameter of a single fiber is needed (e.g. for calcu-
lation of IFSS from micromechanical tests).
Fiber Composition and Surface
For analysis of fiber surface composition, which is
often performed to investigate the effect of surface treat-
ment methods, XPS is the most widely used method [27,
74, 83–85, 90–93, 147–149]. Ref. 148 compares XPS and
XRD data of CF. While XPS reflects the surface proper-
ties, XRD gives information about the bulk structure.
Therefore, XRD hardly reflects effectiveness of surface
treatment, but can be used for characterization of bulk
properties [148, 150]. Differences in crystalline structure
of various CF types can be characterized by Raman spec-
troscopy [150, 151]. Functional groups on fiber surfaces
can be identified by infrared spectroscopy. Methods are
described for AF [80, 82, 84, 88, 152], BF [61], CF [85,
153, 154], and GF [155].
Analysis of surface topography, which can be used for
characterization of the effect of surface treatment methods
on surface roughness, is usually performed by AFM [74,
137, 149] or SEM [95, 137, 155].
Specific surface area can be measured by BET gas
adsorption [85, 86, 150], while concentration of acidic
and basic groups is measured by NaOH or HCl uptake
respectively [85, 86]. Zeta potential measurements can be
applied for characterization of acidic and basic surface
functionalities on CF [94, 95].
Various methods for contact angle measurements are
used to determine the surface energy and to quantify
effectiveness of several surface treatment methods [85,
88, 92, 94, 95, 137]. By measuring the contact angles to
test liquids of known surface energies, the fiber surface
energy including its polar and dispersive components can
be calculated [74, 88, 94, 95, 137, 149].
Thermal Analysis
The most prominent method for thermal analysis is
DSC, which can be used for determination of the degree
of crystallinity [41, 88, 106, 108, 136, 156, 157]. To
obtain the required enthalpy, the sample is first melted to
erase thermal history, then cooled at a defined rate, and
usually heated again at a defined rate. The data are calcu-
lated from the crystallization peak in the cooling step or
from the melting peak in the second heating cycle. Com-
mon cooling and heating rates are 10 C/min [41, 88, 106,
108, 156, 157]. The enthalpies of hypothetical 100% crys-
talline polymers are given in Table 7.
DOI 10.1002/pc
TABLE 7. Enthalpies of hypothetical 100% crystalline polymers.
Polymer DHm0 [J/g] Source
PP 138, 190, 207, 209 [41, 56, 88, 108, 136, 156, 158, 159]
PE 293 [159]
PET 118, 140–145 [106, 157, 159]
PA6 230 [159]
PA66 255, 300 [159]
The thermal stability of various types of fibers and
matrix polymers is usually measured by TGA [28, 56, 88,
111, 145, 155]. Various sources report better thermal sta-
bility of composites compared with the pure matrix mate-
rial [28, 56, 111]. For composites containing thermally
stable fibers, the actual content of the reinforcing material
can be measured by TGA [28, 56, 111, 155].
A method for analysis of thermomechanical properties
of polymers and fiber-reinforced composites is DMA.
Various instrumental setups like single cantilever or dual
cantilever, bending, or tensile mode are reported. Most
experiments are performed using a temperature sweep
program with heating rates of 2 or 5 C/min. Sinusoidal
force or strain are usually applied with frequencies of 1
or 10 Hz [28, 61, 79, 152, 160–162]. The measured stor-
age modulus (E’) correlates with the modulus from
mechanical testing and can be used to compare stiffness
of various materials over a wide temperature range.
Sometimes the glass transition temperature is derived
from the onset of the decrease in the storage modulus,
although this is better characterized by the maximum of
the loss modulus (E00 ) or the loss factor (tan d). The sensi-
tivity to glass transitions is said to be one decade higher
for DMA compared with DSC [162]. Using time-
temperature-superposition, DMA can further be used to
predict long-term creep behavior [163–166].
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The comparison of the tensile properties of various
fiber types used in SFRP shows a potential for partial
substitution of GF. AF and CF clearly outperform GF in
terms of stiffness and specific tensile strength. BF show
tensile properties comparable to those of GF and even
CeF can compete with GF, especially when the difference
in fiber densities is taken into account. However, superior
fiber properties are not always reflected in composite
properties. GF reinforcement yields the highest tensile
strength values (even higher than CF) and even the tensile
modulus values are superior to all other fiber types except
for CF. The main reasons are the more optimized fiber/
matrix interaction and processing conditions for GF-
reinforced composites. Therefore, the main task must be,
to improve the fiber/matrix interaction and processing
conditions for all fiber types. This is especially interest-
ing, as all fiber types offer typical characteristics that
might be advantageous for specific applications. CF,
although they are very expensive, are already widely
POLYMER COMPOSITES—2014 233
used, because of their unmatched stiffness. AF, PAN-F,
and PET-F clearly outperform GF in terms of impact
strength. CeF are known to show less equipment wear
and are usually less expensive than GF. BF offer better
acid resistance compared with GF. All fiber types except
for BF have lower densities than GF, making them more
suitable for lightweight design. All these factors should
be considered, when choosing an appropriate reinforcing
fiber. Therefore, it is important, to close the existing gap
between scientific/technical knowledge and actual market
applications.
REFERENCES
1. M. Ashby, H. Shercliff, and D. Cebon, Materials—Engi-
neering, Science, Processing and Design, Elsevier, Oxford
(2009).
2. A.K. Mohanty, M. Misra, and G. Hinrichsen, Macromol.
Mater. Eng., 276/277, 1 (2000).
3. D.H. Mueller and A. Krobjilowski, J. Indus. Text., 33, 11
(2003).
4. B. Nystr€om, Dissertation, Natural Fiber Composites—Opti-
mization of Microstructure and Processing Parameters,
Lulea University of Technology (2007).
5. Datasheet, Polypropylene HD120MO, Borealis (2004).
6. R. M. Rowell, A. R. Sanadi, R. Jacobson, and D. F.
Caulfield, “Properties of Kenaf polypropylene composites,”
in Kenaf Properties, Processing and Products, Ag & Bio
Engineering, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, 381,
Chapter 32 (1999).
7. S. Y. Fu, B. Lauke, E. M€ader, X. Hu, and C. Y. Yue, J.
Mater. Process. Technol., 89-90, 501 (2011).
8. S. Y. Fu, B. Lauke, E. M€ader, C. Y. Yue, X. Hu, and Y.
W. Mai, J. Mater. Sci., 36, 1243 (2001).
9. H. Ku, H. Wang, N. Pattarachaiyakoop, and M. Trada,
Compos. B, 42, 856 (2011).
10. J. L. Thomason and M. A. Vlug, Compos. A, 27, 477
(1996).
11. bvse—Bundesverband Sekund€arrohstoffe und Entsorgung
e.V. Marktbericht Kunststoffe 7/2012 (2012). Available
at: http://plasticker.de/preise/printmb.php?jahr=2012&mt=7&
quelle5bvse. Last accessed on September 12, 2013.
12. Teijin Aramid, Datasheet, Typical Technical Data of
Twaron Short Cut Fibers and Powder, Teijin (2010).
13. M.A. Lopez-Manchado, J. Biagiotti, and J.M. Kenny, J.
Thermoplast. Compos. Mater., 15, 337 (2002).
14. M. Neitzel and P. Mitschang, Handbuch Verbundwerk-
stoffe—Werkstoffe, Verarbeitung, Anwendung, Carl Hanser
Verlag, M€unchen (2004).
15. H.M. Akil, M.F. Omar, A.A.M. Mazuki, S. Safiee, Z.A.M.
Ishak, and A. Abu Bakar, Mater. Design, 32, 4107 (2011).
16. A.K. Bledzki and J. Gassan, Prog. Polym. Sci., 24, 221
(1999).
17. Teijin Aramid. Comparing aramids (2012).http://www.teiji-
naramid.com/aramids/comparing-aramids/. Last accessed on
September 12, 2013.
234 POLYMER COMPOSITES—2014
18. DuPont. KEVLAR—Technical Guide, 2012. Available
at: http://www2.dupont.com/Kevlar/en_US/assets/downloads/
KEVLAR_Technical_Guide.pdf. Last accessed on Septem-
ber 12, 2013.
19. Willing, J€org, Personal Communication, 19-6-2012, Teijin
Aramid.
20. Datasheet, ASA.TEC Fiber Chopped Fibers, Asamer Basal-
tic Fibers GmbH.
21. J. M. Park, W. G. Shin, and D. J. Yoon, Compos. Sci. Tech-
nol., 59, 355 (1999).
22. T. Deak and T. Czigany, Text. Res. J., 79, 645 (2009).
23. V. Fiore, G. Di Bella, and A. Valenza, Mater. Design, 32,
2091 (2011).
24. Riepler, Simon, Personal Communication, 18-6-2012,
Asamer Basaltic Fibers GmbH.
25. S.Y. Fu, B. Lauke, E. M€ader, C.Y. Yue, and X. Hu, Com-
pos. A, 31, 1117 (2000).
26. R. Taipalus, T. Harmia, M.Q. Zhang, and K. Friedrich,
Compos. Sci. Technol., 61, 801 (2001).
27. J. Li, Appl. Surf. Sci., 255, 2822 (2009).
28. F. Rezaei, R. Yunus, and N. A. Ibrahim, Mater. Design, 30,
260 (2009).
29. Schwill, Henning, Personal Communication, 22-6-2012,
Toho Tenax.
€
30. A. G€ull€u, A. Ozdemir, €
and E. Ozdemir, Mater. Des., 27,
316 (2006).
31. Mulder, Marja, Personal Communication, 27-6-2012, PPG.
32. Dolan GmbH, Datasheet, Dolanit Produktmappe, Dolan
GmbH (2012).
33. Bullinger, Ludwig, Personal Communication, 20-9-2012,
Dolan GmbH.
34. M.A. Lopez-Manchado and M. Arroyo, Polymer, 41, 7761
(2000).
35. Datasheet, PB EUROFIBER CUT F—1763, baumhueter
extrusion (2012).
36. B€aumer, Andre, Personal Communication, 20-9-2012,
baumhueter extrusion.
37. L. Sobczak, R.W. Lang, and A. Haider, Compos. Sci. Tech-
nol., 72, 550 (2012).
38. M. Zampaloni, F. Pourboghrat, S.A. Yankovich, B N.
Rodgers, J. Moore, L.T. Drzal, A.K. Mohanty, and M.
Misra, Compos. A, 38, 1569 (2007).
39. O. Faruk, A.K. Bledzki, H.P. Fink, and M. Sain, Prog.
Polym Sci., 37, 1552..
40. F. Ronkay and T. Czigany, Polym. Adv. Technol, 17, 830
(2006).
41. S.Z. Matko, P. Anna, G.Y. Marosi, A. Szep, S. Keszei, T.
Czigany, and K. P€ol€oskei, Macromol. Symp., 202, 255
(2003).
42. V. Lopresto, C. Leone, and I. De Iorio, Compos. B, 42, 717
(2011).
43. Datasheet, 401 S-2 GlassV R Chopped Strands, agy (2004).
44. J.J. Maya and R.D. Anandjiwala, Polym. Compos., 29, 187
(2007).
45. G. Kalaprasad, K. Joseph, S. Thomas, and C. Pavithran, J.
Mater. Sci., 32, 4261 (1997).
46. Datasheet, Tencel, Lenzing AG.
DOI 10.1002/pc
47. Datasheet, Lupolen 5261 Z Q 456 B, LyondellBasell Indus-
tries Holdings, B.V. (2009).
48. Datasheet, Polyethylene BS2581, Borealis (2003).
49. Datasheet, Polyethylene MG9601, Borealis (2010).
50. Datasheet, Cestilene HD 500 R, Quadrant (2003).
51. Datasheet, PE300Sheet, Oadby.
52. Datasheet, Lupolen 1800 S, Basell (2005).
53. Datasheet, Polyethylene FA7220, Borealis (2010).
54. J.L. Thomason, Compos. A, 33, 1641 (2002).
55. T. Czigany, Compos. Sci. Technol., 66, 3210 (2006).
56. W. Wang, L. Tang, and B. Qu, Eur. Polym. J., 39, 2129
(2003).
57. J.L. Thomason, M.A. Vlug, G. Schipper, and H. Krikor,
Compos. A, 27, 1075 (1996).
58. Datasheet, PET, Eriks.
59. Datasheet, Ertalyte, Quadrant (2007).
60. A.L.F. de Moura Giraldi, R.C. de Jesus, and L.H. Mei, J.
Mater. Process. Technol., 162, 90 (2005).
61. T. Deak, T. Czigany, P. Tamas, and C.S. Nemeth, Express
Polym. Lett., 4, 590 (2010).
62. P.A. Santos, K.K.G. Fermoselli, M.A. De Paoli, and M.A.S.
Spinace, Compos. A, 38, 2404 (2007).
63. D.M. Laura, H. Keskkula, J.W. Barlow, and D.R. Paul,
Polymer, 43, 4673 (2002).
64. B. Mouhmid, A. Imad, N. Benseddiq, S. Benmedakhène,
and A. Maazouz. Polym Test, 25, 544 (2006).
65. J.L. Thomason, Compos. A, 39, 1618 (2008).
66. Datasheet, PVC, Bay Plastics Ltd.
67. Y.Z. Meng and S.C. Tjong, Polymer, 40, 2711 (1999).
68. D. Braun, Prog. Polym. Sci., 27, 2721 (2002).
69. Datasheet, PS, Eriks.
70. Datasheet, Styron 666D, Americas Styrenics.
71. Datasheet, Empera 116N, Nova Innovene, (2006).
72. Y. Huang and R.J. Young, Composites, 26, 541 (1995).
73. S. Deng, L. Ye, and Y.W. Mai, Compos. Sci. Technol., 59,
1331 (1999).
74. W. Song, A. Gu, G. Liang, and L. Yuan, Appl. Surf. Sci.,
257, 4069 (2011).
75. Datasheet, Produktprogramm f€
ur TenaxV
R Kurzfasern, Toho
Tenax Europe GmbH, (2011).
76. Datasheet, Produkt€
ubersicht - geschnittene Fasern f€
ur Ther-
moplaste, M€uhlmeier GmbH & CO.KG, (2012).
77. K. Van de Velde and P. Kiekens, J. Thermoplast. Compos.
Mater., 14, 244 (2001).
78. M. Bengtsson, M. L. Baillif, and K. Oksman, Compos. A,
38, 1922 (2007).
79. S. Saikrasun, T. Amornsakchai, C. Sirisinha, W. Meesiri,
and S. Bualek-Limcharoen, Polymer, 40, 6437 (1999).
80. T. Amornsakchai, B. Sinpatanapan, S. Bualek-Limcharoen,
and W. Meesiri, Polymer, 40, 2993 (1999).
81. S.C. Tjong, S.A. Xu, and Y.W. Mai, Mater. Sci. Eng. A,
347, 338 (2003).
82. J.S. Lin, Eur. Polym. J., 38, 79 (2002).
DOI 10.1002/pc
83. G. Li, C. Zhang, Y. Wang, P. Li, Y. Yu, X. Jia, H. Liu, X.
Yang, Z. Xue, and S. Ryu, Compos. Sci. Technol., 68, 3208
(2008).
84. S.J. Park, M.K. Seo, T.J. Ma, and D.R. Lee, J. Colloid
Interface Sci., 252, 249 (2002).
85. E. Pamula and P.G. Rouxhet, Carbon, 41, 1905 (2003).
86. C.U. Pittman, Carbon, 35, 929 (1997).
87. Bismarck, A., Dissertation, Chemische Modifizierung von
Carbonfasern, Berlin, Technische Universit€at (1999).
88. J. Maity, C. Jacob, C.K. Das, S. Alam, and R.P. Singh,
Compos. A, 39, 825 (2008).
89. J.R. Brown and Z. Mathys, J. Mater. Sci., 32, 2599 (1997).
90. C. Jia, P. Chen, W. Liu, B. Li, and Q. Wang, Appl. Surf.
Sci., 257, 4165 (2011).
91. M.A. Montes-Moran, A. Martınez-Alonso, J.M.D. Tascon,
and R.J. Young, Compos. A, 32, 361 (2001).
92. H. Bubert, X. Ai, S. Haiber, M. Heintze, V. Br€user, E.
Pasch, W. Brandl, and G. Marginean, Spectrochim. Acta
Part B, 57, 1601 (2002).
93. J. Li, Appl. Surf. Sci., 255, 2822 (2008).
94. A. Bismarck, D. Richter, C. Wuertz, and J. Springer, Col-
loids Surf. A 159, 341 (1999).
95. A. Bismarck, C. Wuertz, and J. Springer, Carbon, 37, 1019
(1999).
96. M. Friedrich, A. Schulze, G. Pr€osch, C. Walter, D. Weikert,
N.M. Binh, and D.R.T. Zahn, Microchim. Acta, 133, 171
(2000).
97. B. Wei, H. Cao, and S. Song, Mater. Design, 31, 4244
(2010).
98. C. Gao, L. Yu, H. Liu, and L. Chen, Prog. Polym. Sci., 37,
767 (2012).
 Kmetty, T. Barany, and J. Karger-Kocsis, Prog. Polym.
99. A.
Sci., 35, 1288 (2010).
100. S. Houshyar, R.A. Shanks, and A. Hodzic, Express Polym.
Lett., 3, 2 (2009).
101. T. Barany, A. Izer, and J. Karger-Kocsis, Polym. Test., 28,
176 (2009).
102. F.W.J. Van Hattum, C.A. Bernardo, J.C. Finegan, G.G.
Tibbetts, R.L. Alig, and M.L. Lake, Polym. Compos., 20,
683 (1999).
103. S.Y. Fu, Y.W. Mai, B. Lauke, and C.Y. Yue, Mater. Sci.
Eng. A, 323, 326 (2002).
104. R.J. Foster, P.J. Hine, and I.M. Ward, Polymer, 50, 4018
(2009).
105. V.S. Chevali and G.M. Janowski, Compos. A, 41, 1253
(2010).
106. A.L.F. de M.Giraldi, J.R. Bartoli, J.I. Velasco, and L.H.I.
Mei, Polym. Test., 24, 507 (2005).
107. R.J. Kuriger, M.K. Alam, D.P. Anderson, and R.L.
Jacobsen, Compos. A, 33, 53 (2002).
108. M. Arroyo, R. Zitzumbo, and F. Avalos, Polymer, 41,
6351 (2000).
109. J.L. Thomason, Compos. A, 36, 995 (2005).
110. J.L. Thomason, Compos. A, 38, 210 (2007).
111. W.N. Ota, S.C. Amico, and K.G. Satyanarayana, Compos.
Sci. Technol., 65, 873 (2005).
POLYMER COMPOSITES—2014 235
112. S.Y. Fu, X. Hu, and C.Y. Yue, Mater. Sci. Res. Int., 5, 74
(1999).
113. S.Y. Fu and B. Lauke, Compos. Sci. Technol., 56, 1179
(1996).
114. C. Quijano-Solis, N. Yan, and S.Y. Zhang, Compos. A, 40,
351 (2009).
115. B. Mano, J.R. Araujo, M.A.S. Spinace, and M.-A. De
Paoli, Compos. Sci. Technol., 70, 29 (2010).
116. A.L. Duc, B. Vergnes, and T. Budtova, Compos. A, 42,
1727 (2011).
117. S. Keszei, S. Matko, G. Bertalan, P. Anna, G. Marosi, and
A. Toth, Eur. Polym. J., 41, 697 (2005).
118. Datasheet, RTP 187 Polypropylene, RTP Company (2010).
119. Datasheet, RTP 183 Polypropylene, RTP Company (2010).
120. Datasheet, Chop Vantage HP3299, PPG Fiber Glass.
121. Datasheet, Centroplast Centrolen PP GF Polypropylene
30% Glass Fiber, Centroplast (2010).
122. Datasheet, Polypropylene Compound GB311U, Borealis
(2008).
123. Datasheet, Polypropylene Compound GB205U, Borealis
(2008).
124. M. Sain, P. Suhara, S. Law, and A. Bouilloux, J. Reinf.
Plast. Compos., 24, 121 (2005).
125. H. Gunkel and S. Reinemann, Kunststoffe, 9, 125 (2008).
126. P. V. Joseph, G. Mathew, K. Joseph, S. Thomas, and P.
Pradeep, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 88, 602 (2003).
127. Datasheet, UPM ForMi GP, UPM (2011).
128. Datasheet, UPM ForMi SP, UPM (2011).
129. Datasheet, UPM ForMi TP40, UPM (2011).
130. Datasheet, FibrolonVR P 8540, FkuR (2012).
131. Datasheet, Polyfort FIPP 30 NF, A. Schulman (2012).
132. Datasheet, Produktkatalog Naturfaser-Spritzguss, H€urth,
nova-Institut GmbH (2011).
133. S. Zhandarov and E. M€ader, Compos. Sci. Technol., 65,
149 (2005).
134. A. Valadez-Gonzalez, J.M. Cervantes-Uc, R. Olayo, and
P.J. Herrera-Franco, Compos. B, 30, 309 (1999).
135. J. Biagiotti, D. Puglia, L. Torre, and J.M. Kenny, Polym.
Compos., 25, 470 (2004).
136. C.-M. Wu, M. Chen, and J. Karger-Kocsis, Polymer, 42, 199
(2001).
137. R.L. Zhang, Y.D. Huang, L. Liu, Y.R. Tang, D. Su, and
L.W. Xu, Appl. Surf. Sci., 257, 3519 (2011).
138. S.Y. Fu, B. Lauke, Y.H. Zhang, and Y.W. Mai, Compos.
A, 36, 987 (2005).
139. S.N. Chaudhuri, R.A. Chaudhuri, R.E. Benner, and M.S.
Penugonda, Compos. Struct., 76, 375 (2006).
140. M.A. Montes-Moran and R.J. Young, Carbon, 40, 845
(2002).
141. R.J. Day, K.D. Hewson, and P.A. Lovell, Compos. Sci.
Technol., 62, 153 (2002).
236 POLYMER COMPOSITES—2014
142. M. Rohde, A. Ebel, F. Wolff-Fabris, and V. Altst€adt, Int.
Polym. Proc., 26, 292 (2011).
143. T.S. Creasy and Y.S. Kang, J. |Mater. Process. Technol.,
160, 90 (2005).
144. A. Hassan, P.R. Hornsby, and M.J. Folkes, Polym. Test.,
22, 185 (2003).
145. M. Le Baillif and K. Oksman, J. Thermoplast. Compos.
Mater., 22, 115 (2009).
146. S. Ceccia, D. Ferri, D. Tabuani, and P.L. Maffettone,
Rheol. Acta, 47, 425 (2008).
147. L. Liu, Y.D. Huang, Z.Q. Zhang, Z.X. Jiang, and L.N.
Wu, Appl. Surf. Sci., 254, 2594 (2008).
148. P. Sherwood, J. Electron. Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom., 81,
319 (1996).
149. N. Dilsiz and J.P. Wightman, Carbon, 37, 1105 (1999).
150. S. Lee, S.Y. Da, A.A. Ogale, and M.S. Kim, J. Phys.
Chem. Solids, 69, 1407 (2008).
151. D. Leveque and M.H. Auvray, Compos. Sci. Technol., 56,
749 (1996).
152. M. Mukherjee, C.K. Das, A.P. Kharitonov, K. Banik, G.
Mennig, and T.N. Chung, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 441, 206
(2006).
153. J. Gulyas, E. F€oldes, A. Lazar, and B. Pukanszky, Compos.
A, 32, 353 (2001).
154. Z.R. Yue, W. Jiang, L. Wang, S.D. Gardner, and C.U.
Pittman, Carbon, 37, 1785 (1999).
155. M. Guo, H. Yang, H. Tan, C. Wang, Q. Zhang, R. Du, and
Q. Fu, Macromol. Mater. Eng., 291, 239 (2006).
156. B. Larin, T. Lyashenko, H. Harel, and G. Marom, Compos.
Sci. Technol., 71, 177 (2011).
157. D. Arencon and J.I. Velasco, J. Thermoplast. Compos.
Mater., 15, 317 (2002).
158. A. Amash and P. Zugenmaier, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 63,
1143 (1997).
159. G.W. Ehrenstein, G. Riedel, and P. Trawiel, Praxis der
Thermischen Analyse von Kunststoffen, Carl Hanser Ver-
lag, M€unchen (2003).
160. P.G. Malchev, C.T. David, S.J. Picken, and A.D. Gotsis,
Polymer, 46, 3895 (2005).
161. J.L. Thomason and W.M. Groenewoud, Compos. A, 27,
555 (1996).
162. B. Wielage, T. Lampke, H. Utschick, and F. Soergel, J.
|Mater. Process. Technol., 139, 140 (2003).
163. S. Tamrakar, R.A. Lopez-Anido, A. Kiziltas, and D.J.
Gardner, Composites: Part A, 42, 834 (2011).
164. Y. Xu, Q. Wu, Y. Lei, and F. Yao, Bioresour. Technol.,
101, 3280 (2010).
165. M. Tajvidi, R.H. Falk, and J.C. Hermanson, J. Appl.
Polym. Sci., 97, 1995 (2005).
166. S. Houshyar, R.A. Shanks, and A. Hodzic, Polym. Test.,
24, 257 (2005).
DOI 10.1002/pc