1-Ravandi - QUASI-STATIC AND IMPACT CHARACTERIZATIONS OF STITCHED FLAX FIBER COMPOSITES PDF

QUASI-STATIC AND IMPACT
CHARACTERIZATIONS OF STITCHED FLAX
FIBER COMPOSITES
MOHAMMAD RAVANDI
(M.Sc. (Hons), Amirkabir University of Technology, Iran)
A THESIS SUBMITTED
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
DEPARTEMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE
2017
Supervisors:
Associate Professor Yong Ming Shyan John, Main Supervisor
Professor Tay Tong Earn, Co-Supervisor
Dr. Teo Wern Sze, Co-Supervisor
Examiners:
Associate Professor Tan Beng Chye, Vincent
Associate Professor Lim Kian Meng
Professor Ignace Verpoest, University of Leuven
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this thesis is my original work and it has been written by
me in its entirety. I have duly acknowledged all the sources of information
which have been used in the thesis.
This thesis has also not been submitted for any degree in any university
previously.
Mohammad Ravandi
20 April 2017
i
Acknowledgements
Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to my
supervisors Prof. Tay Tong Earn, Dr. Yong Ming Shyan and Dr. Teo Wern Sze
for their continuous support, motivation, guidance and advice throughout my
PhD journey. It would never have been possible for me to have this thesis
accomplished without all of their invaluable supports. Besides my supervisors,
I would like to thank Dr. Tran Le Quan Ngoc for sharing his knowledge and
experiences on natural fiber composites as well as his helpful discussions.
The list of people I have to thank is really endless, but I could not have it done
without a single one of them. I express my warm thanks to Dr. Ridha
Muhammad for his valuable help and guidance on the finite element modeling,
Dr. Deng Xinying for her countless help with carrying out experiments at
SIMTech, and Dr. Umeyr Kureemun for his useful discussions on the testing
and modeling of composites. Many thanks to lab technologists Mr. Abdul Malik
Bin Baba, Mr. Low Chee Wah and Mr. Chiam Tow Jong for their all great
assistance with lab equipment, and providing precious technical supports during
the long hours of lab work.
My heartfelt thanks to all my friends in applied mechanics group of National
University of Singapore, Dr. Boyang Chen, Dr. Abhishek Vishwanat, Dr. Andy
Haris, Mr. Ashish Kumar, Mr. M.R. Abir , Dr. Hu Xiaofei, Dr. Nader Hamzavi,
Dr. Saeid Arabnejad, Mr. Ebrahim Sadeghpour, and all my fellow labmates in
ii
SIMTech, Dr. Steve Phillips, Dr. Zhang Xiwen, Ms Tan Cher Lin, for your
kindness, friendship and unwavering support that you have brought me.
Special thanks to the Singapore international graduate award and A*STAR for
funding this project and the four-year scholarship.
Last but not the least, I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my parents,
Hajar Ravandi and Maghsoud Ravandi for your endless love, support,
encouragement and trust in my life. And to Nastaran Aslnajjari, thank you for
being in my life, for your love and company, for your understanding and support,
as well as for all of the sacrifices you made for me.
iii
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................ 1

1.1. Background ......................................................................................... 1
1.2. Problem statement ............................................................................... 3
1.3. Objectives of the research ................................................................... 4
1.4. Structure of the thesis .......................................................................... 5
Chapter 2 A Literature review.................................................................... 8

2.1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 8
2.2. Trend in using plant fibers to reinforce polymers ............................... 9
2.3. Flax fiber composites ........................................................................ 13
2.3.1. Flax fibers .................................................................................. 13
2.3.2. Flax fiber reinforced composites ............................................... 17
2.3.3. Fiber Architecture ...................................................................... 19
2.3.4. Thermoset resins ........................................................................ 24
2.3.5. Fiber-matrix bonding ................................................................. 25
2.3.6. Composite processing ................................................................ 26
2.4. Impact behavior of laminated composites ......................................... 28
2.4.1. Composite laminates under low-velocity impact ....................... 28
2.4.2. Low-velocity impact behavior of natural fiber composites ....... 32
2.5. Through-the-thickness stitched composites ...................................... 35
2.5.1. Effect of stitching on mechanical properties and toughness of
composites.................................................................................. 38
2.5.2. Effect of stitching on impact behavior of composites ............... 45
2.6. Numerical analysis of stitched and woven composites ..................... 47
2.6.1. Numerical modeling for natural fiber composites ..................... 48
2.6.2. Predicting interlaminar fracture toughness of stitched
composites................................................................................. 50
2.6.3. Failure analysis of woven composites under impact loads ........ 55
2.7. Summary ........................................................................................... 57
Chapter 3 Experimental Methodology ..................................................... 59

3.1. Introduction ....................................................................................... 59
3.2. Material ............................................................................................. 60
iv
3.2.1. In-plane flax fiber reinforcements ............................................. 60
3.2.2. Stitch fibers ................................................................................ 60
3.2.3. Thermoset matrix ....................................................................... 61
3.3. Preform stitching ............................................................................... 62
3.3.1. Cotton thread stitching ............................................................... 62
3.3.2. Flax yarn stitching...................................................................... 63
3.4. Composite manufacturing ................................................................. 66
3.5. Fiber volume fraction measurement .................................................. 69
3.6. Composite tensile testing .................................................................. 69
3.7. Strength evaluation of the stitch fibers .............................................. 70
3.8. Flexural testing .................................................................................. 71
3.9. Composite double cantilever beam (DCB) testing ............................ 72
3.10. Low-velocity impact testing .......................................................... 75
3.11. Scanning Electron Microscopy ...................................................... 77
Chapter 4 Mechanical and fracture properties of stitched

flax fiber composites ................................................................ 79
4.1. Introduction ....................................................................................... 79
4.2. Strength of dry and impregnated stitch fibers ................................... 80
4.3. Effects of stitch areal fraction on the in-plane properties
of the woven composite..................................................................... 82
4.3.1. Tensile properties ....................................................................... 84
4.3.2. Flexural properties ..................................................................... 88
4.4. Effect of stitch areal fraction on the Mode I interlaminar
fracture toughness of flax woven fabric composite .......................... 91
4.5. Fracture mechanisms of Mode I DCB samples from SEM
micrographs ....................................................................................... 96
4.6. Effect of in-plane fiber architecture on the Mode I interlaminar
fracture toughness of unstitched and stitched
composite laminates .......................................................................... 98
4.7. Conclusion ....................................................................................... 103
Chapter 5 Numerical modeling of Mode I interlaminar failure of

stitched flax fiber composites ................................................ 105
5.1. Introduction ..................................................................................... 105
5.2. DCB test simulation of stitched flax fiber composite ..................... 106
5.2.1. Modeling strategy .................................................................... 106
5.2.2. Material Model......................................................................... 110
v
5.3. Modeling of in-plane fiber bridging by means of cohesive law ..... 116
5.3.1. Testing for fracture properties of unstitched composite .......... 116
5.3.2. Superposition of cohesive laws for modeling the effect
of fiber bridging ....................................................................... 119
5.3.3. FEM modeling of DCB test of unstitched composite .............. 123
5.4. Results of FEM modeling of DCB testing of stitched composite ... 127
5.4.1. Parametric study....................................................................... 134
5.5. Conclusion ....................................................................................... 136
Chapter 6 Low-velocity impact performance of stitched flax/epoxy

composite laminates ............................................................... 138
6.1. Introduction ..................................................................................... 138
6.2. Specimen types and the drop-weight impact test parameters ......... 139
6.3. Visual inspection of post-impact specimens ................................... 141
6.3.1. Non-perforation impact test (19.6J) ......................................... 141
6.3.2. Perforation impact test (44.6J) ................................................. 143
6.4. Impact force- time history ............................................................... 144
6.5. Impact force-displacement response ............................................... 151
6.6. Energy absorption and impact fracture toughness .......................... 155
6.7. Conclusion ....................................................................................... 162
Chapter 7 Numerical analysis of low-velocity impact on woven

flax/epoxy composite laminate .............................................. 164
7.1. Introduction ..................................................................................... 164
7.2. Modeling strategy ............................................................................ 165
7.3. Material model ................................................................................ 168
7.3.1. Elastic behavior of woven laminate ......................................... 169
7.3.2. Fiber failure .............................................................................. 171
7.3.3. Matrix failure ........................................................................... 172
7.3.4. Delamination ............................................................................ 174
7.4. Numerical simulation results and discussion .................................. 175
7.4.1. Impact force response .............................................................. 175
7.4.2. Impact damage evolution ......................................................... 178
7.4.3. Matrix damage and delamination............................................. 184
7.4.4. Permanent deformation ............................................................ 185
7.4.5. Effect of intralaminar fracture toughness ................................ 187
7.5. Conclusion ....................................................................................... 188
vi
Chapter 8 General Conclusion and recommendations ......................... 190
8.1. General Conclusion ......................................................................... 190
8.2. Recommendations ........................................................................... 195
References ……………………………………………………………………….. 199

Appendix A ………………………………………………………...…………….. 220
Appendix B ...…………………………………………………………………….. 225
Appendix C ...…………………………………………………………………….. 228
vii
Summary
Flax fibers, desired for their high specific stiffness, vibration damping, and low
environmental impact, make suitable reinforcements in polymer composites for
moderate load-bearing applications. The composite mechanical properties are
able to match those of short random glass fiber reinforced polymers when the
flax fibers are used in the form of laminates of continuous uni-directional (UD)
or woven fibers made from optimally twisted yarns. To improve the out-of-
plane properties and damage tolerance of conventional laminated composites,
stitching has been recognized as a convenient and cost-effective technique.
However, the effectiveness of stitching natural fiber preforms to improve the
performance of resin infused natural fiber laminated composites have yet to be
widely investigated. Modeling of damage development in continuous natural
fiber composites is also fairly uncommon at this moment.
This thesis reports a comprehensive study on the effects of through-the-
thickness stitching using natural fibers on the mechanical and impact properties
of flax fiber/epoxy composite laminates. Woven fabric and unidirectional
laminates preforms stitched with twistless flax yarn and twisted cotton threads
were studied. The tensile, flexural and Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness
of composites with various stitch areal densities were experimentally
determined, followed by transverse impact tests on the optimally stitched woven
fiber composites. A finite element model of a double-cantilever-beam test was
successfully developed to give accurate predictions of delamination propagation
in stitched natural fiber composites, taking into account effects of the extensive
viii
in-plane fiber bridging and stitch yarn by means of trilinear cohesive law and 2-
node beam elements, respectively. A finite element modeling of the drop-weight
impact test on woven flax fiber composite was also implemented to study the
material behavior, damage development, and impact fracture resistance.
The results of this study show that flax-yarn stitches perform far better than
cotton threads to enhance the quasi-static interlaminar fracture toughness of
flax/epoxy composites. However, the stitch-induced defects also lowered the
tensile properties and transverse impact resistance of the composites
substantially. Damage development tends to be dominated by both fiber and
matrix fractures, resulting in the fracture and energy absorption mechanisms
being quite different from synthetic fiber composites. Finally, the numerical
work showed that the continuum damage mechanics model is able to predict the
force history, deformation and the impact damage of woven flax composite with
good accuracy.
ix
List of Symbols
𝐴𝑠 Average cross-section area of the stitch

𝑎 Delamination crack length
∆𝑎 Change in crack length
𝑏 Specimen width
𝐶, 𝐾 Parameters of hardening function
𝐷𝑖𝑗 Penalty stiffness of cohesive element
𝑑𝑖𝑗 Stiffness degradation factor in ij-direction
𝐸𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 Impact energy
𝐸𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑒𝑑 Absorbed energy of impact
E11 Longitudinal Young’s modulus
E22 Transverse Young’s modulus
E33 Out-of-plane Young’s modulus
𝐹𝑖𝑗 Damage activation function in ij-direction
G12 , G13 In-plane shear modulus
G23 Out-of-plane shear modulus
𝐺𝐶𝑚 Mixed-mode fracture energy
𝐺𝐼𝑐 Mode I fracture toughness
𝐺𝐼𝐼𝑐 Mode II fracture toughness
𝐺1 Initiation value of fracture toughness
𝐺2 Subtraction of propagation and initiation values of 𝐺𝐼𝐶
𝐺𝑐 Propagation values of fracture toughness
𝐺𝑓+ Tensile fracture toughness of woven composites in fiber
directions
𝐺𝑓−𝛼 Compressive fracture toughness of woven composites in fiber
directions
𝐺𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 Impact fracture toughness
𝑔 Acceleration of gravity
𝐿 Length of through-thickness crack in laminates
𝑙𝑐 Material characteristic length
𝑙𝑐_𝑆𝑢𝑝 Characteristic length of the process zone for the trilinear
cohesive law
𝑠𝑠
𝑙𝑝𝑧_𝑆𝑢𝑝 Steady-state process zone lengths for the trilinear cohesive law
𝑀 Mass of impactor
𝑚, 𝑛 Superposition parameters of trilinear cohesive law
𝑃 Crack opening load
𝑃1 Damage initiation force under impact loading
𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 Maximum impact force
x
𝑃𝑖𝑚𝑝 Impact force
𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ Stitch cross-sectional radius
𝑅
𝑟𝑖𝑗 Damage thresholds in ij-direction
𝑆 Shear yielding stress
𝑆𝑅 Stitch row spacing
𝑆𝐿 Stitch length
𝑡𝑝 Thickness of a single ply
𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑚 Thickness of plies stacking with same orientation
𝑉𝑐 Contact velocity in impact
𝑉𝑓 Fiber volume fraction
𝑋𝑓+ Ultimate tensile strength of woven composites in fiber directions
𝑋𝑓− Ultimate compressive strength of woven composites in fiber
directions
𝑋𝑡𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ Strength of stitch yarn
𝛿𝑖𝑚𝑝 Impactor displacement
∆ Crack length correction factor
𝛿 Crack opening displacement
𝛿eff Effective displacement
𝜖𝑖𝑗 Strain components
𝑒𝑙 In-plane elastic shear strain
𝜀12
𝑝𝑙 In-plane plastic shear strain
𝜀12
𝜎̃ Effective stress
𝜎𝑖𝑗 Stress components
𝜎𝑠 , 𝜎𝑡 Shear stress components
𝜎𝑛𝑐 Normal strength of cohesive interface
𝜎𝑠𝑐 , 𝜎𝑡𝑐 Shear strength of cohesive interface
𝜎̃12 Effective shear stress
𝜙𝑖𝑗 Ratio of stress 𝜎𝑖𝑗 to strength 𝑋𝑖𝑗
𝜂 Material parameter in the B-K criterion
𝑣 Poisson’s ratio
𝜌𝑚 Density of pure cured matrix
𝜌𝑓 Density of fiber
𝜌𝑐 Density of composite
xi
List of Abbreviations
1D One-dimensional
2D Two-dimensional
3D Three-dimensional
ASTM American society for testing and materials
B31 Abaqus 2-node beam element
CAI Compression after impact
CC Compliance calibration
CDM Continuum damage mechanics
CFRP Carbon fiber reinforced plastics
COD Crack opening displacement
COH3D8 Abaqus 8-node 3D cohesive element
DCB Double cantilever beam
ENF End notched flexure
FAI Flexure after impact
FE Finite element
FEM Finite element method
FFT Fast Fourier transform
FRP Fiber reinforced plastics
FT Fracture toughness
MBT Modified beam theory
MCC Modified compliance calibration
MFA Microfibrillar angle
NL Deviation from linearity in load-displacement curve of DCB test
PTFE Polytetrafluoroethylene
RTM Resin transfer molding
RVE Representative volume element
SEM Scanning electron microscopic
SC8R Abaqus 8-node quadrilateral continuum shell element
UD Unidirectional
UMAT User-defined material model in Abaqus/Standard
VARI Vacuum Assisted Resin Infusion
VARTM Vacuum assisted resin transfer molding
VCCT Virtual crack closure technique
VIS Initiation of fracture obtained by visual observation during DCB test
VUMAT User-defined material model in Abaqus/Explicit
xii
List of Tables
Table 2.1. General advantages of natural fibers over synthetic glass fiber [37].
Table 2.2. Chemical, morphological and mechanical properties of some
natural fibers used for reinforcing polymers [1,39,45,57–62].
Table 3.1. Summary of the composite lay-up and stitch parameters of the
manufactured composite laminates.
Table 4.1. Tensile properties of cotton thread and flax twist-less yarn.
Table 5.1. Material properties used in the numerical model of DCB test.
Table 6.1. The composite lay-up, notation and stitch parameters used for the
manufactured flax fiber laminates for the drop weight impact test.
Table 6.2. Information of Impact test and specimen’s thickness.
Table 6.3. Summary of impact test results.
Table 7.1. Material properties used in numerical modeling.
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Schematic outline of this thesis.
Figure 2.1. Classification of reinforcing fibers (reproduced from [40]).
Figure 2.2. The performance and corresponding applications of composites
made of natural fiber (flax) in different fiber forms (reproduced form [44]).
Figure 2.3. Schematic and SEM images of technical fibers versus elementary
fibers (adapted from [44]).
Figure 2.4. Hierarchal structure of flax fiber from stem to microfibril (figures
were reproduced from [44,54]).
Figure 2.5. Ashby plots comparing (a) absolute tensile properties, (b) tensile
properties per unit density for different natural fibers and E-glass [5].
Figure 2.6. Comparison of the absolute and specific tensile properties of
natural fiber composites with E-glass composites [5].
Figure 2.7. Different flax fiber processing and selection of fiber preforms for
composite [47].
Figure 2.8. (a) Effect of twist on yarn tensile strength and failure mechanism;
(b) Tensile strength of (●) long and (□) short flax fiber epoxy impregnated
yarns as a function of twist level [74].
Figure 2.9. Comparison of static and post-fatigue tensile properties of flax–
epoxy composite after exposing to fatigue cycling up to 500,000 cycles, (a) the
tensile modulus and (b) the ultimate tensile strength [8].
Figure 2.10. Classification of natural fiber treatment methods [1].
xiv
Figure 2.11. The performance of various natural fiber composites
manufactured using different techniques [46].
Figure 2.12. Typical impact load–time and impact energy–time histories of (a)
non-penetrated and (b) penetrated laminate [87].
Figure 2.13. Schematic illustration of a typical impact damage mode for
composite laminate [87].
Figure 2.14. Example of (a) complex preform manufacturing through
stitching and (b) commercially available robotic stitching machine (Altin
Nahtechnik GmbH) [21].
Figure 2.15. Examples of stitching damages; (a) in-plane fiber breakage, (b)
local misalignment of fibers around a stitch and (c) schematic of fiber
crimping [21,108].
Figure 2.16. Diagrammatic side view of the sewing machine and its particular
needle developed for the brittle thread (reproduced from [112]).
Figure 2.17. Schematic illustration of (a) lock stitch, (b) modified lock stitch
and (c) chain stitch.
Figure 2.18. DCB test of (a) unstitched and (b) stitched specimen; (c) Load
versus COD curves of unstitched and stitched composites with similar fiber
orientation [108].
Figure 2.19. Stitch fracture process: (a) Initial stitch; (b) Interfacial debonding;
(c) Slack absorption; (d) Stitch fracture and (e) Frictional pull-out [27].
Figure 2.20. Effect of increasing stitch density on the tensile strength and
modulus of chain stitched (a) S2 glass/polyester and (b) Kevlar/PVB-Phenol
composites [105].
xv
Figure 2.21. Effect of z-binder content (stitch density) on the mechanical
properties of various synthetic fiber composites; (a) normalized tensile
strength, (b) normalized tensile modulus, (c) normalized flexural strength, (d)
normalized flexural modulus (The normalized properties, defined as the ratio
of properties of stitched composites to that of the equivalent unstitched
laminate) [32].
Figure 2.22. (a) Schematic of the unit cell used in [139]; (b) Microstructures of
short flax fibers in matrix with different orientation coefficient [140].
Figure 2.23. Illustration of an embedded stitch fiber (a) during elastic
stretching and (b) after slippage of embedded end without interconnected
stitched effect; (c) interconnected stitched fiber during elastic stretching [110].
Figure 2.24. (a) Interlaminar tension test specimen proposed by [27]; (b)
fractured stitch after interlaminar tension test; (c) fractured stitches at the
surface of the test specimen after DCB test [23].
Figure 2.25. Modeling of z-fiber mechanical properties [23].
Figure 3.1. (a) Biotex flax 4x4 hopsack fabric; (b) FlaxTape©110
unidirectional fiber.
Figure 3.2. (a) Biotex 250tex flax yarn; (b) Natural cotton C Ne 50 thread.
Figure 3.3. (a) Stitching using sewing machine; (b) Cross-section of the
cotton-thread stitched woven flax/epoxy composite.
Figure 3.4. Cross-section of the flax-yarn stitched woven flax/epoxy
composite.
Figure 3.5. (a) Schematic view of a stitched preform of woven flax fiber; (b)
Definition of stitch parameters shown from side and top view.
xvi
Figure 3.6. The vacuum assistant resin infusion setup used for manufacturing
composite laminates.
Figure 3.7. (a) and (b) Optical micrograph of the cross-section of the flax fiber
composite; (c) SEM image of a fractured resin-impregnated flax fiber in the
composite.
Figure 3.8. Tensile test of the woven flax fiber composite.
Figure 3.9. (a) Schematic view of the mounting tab and (b) the tensile test of
stitch fiber specimen.
Figure 3.10. Three-point bending test of the woven flax fiber composite.
Figure 3.11. Schematic of tabbed double cantilever beam (DCB) test
specimen.
Figure 3.12. DCB test setup and mounted specimen.
Figure 3.13. Drop-weight impact test setup with a mounted woven flax
specimen.
Figure 4.1. (a) Comparison of load-elongation curves of cotton thread and flax
yarn before and after resin impregnation; (b) dry twist-less flax yarn with
binding thread; (c) dry twisted cotton thread.
Figure 4.2. Effects of various stitch areal fractions of cotton thread and flax
yarn on the tensile properties of woven composite; (a) tensile strength; (b)
tensile stiffness.
Figure 4.3. Effects of various stitch areal fractions of cotton thread and flax
yarn on the flexural properties of the woven composite; (a) flexural strength;
(b) flexural stiffness.
Figure 4.4. Schematic of three-point bending test of woven flax composite.
xvii
Figure 4.5. Failure of (a) Flax yarn and (b) Cotton thread stitched woven flax
composite under bending stress.
Figure 4.6. Effects of stitch areal fraction and stitch material on the
interlaminar fracture toughness (GIC) of woven flax/epoxy composites.
Figure 4.7. R-curves of the stitched flax woven laminates using cotton thread
and flax yarn at almost equal stitch areal fraction of 0.02.
Figure 4.8. Comparison of the frequency of the stitch-induced defects at a
similar stitch areal fraction of (a) cotton thread and (b) flax yarn stitched
composites.
Figure 4.9. SEM image of fractured stitches within the stitched woven
composite; (a) cotton thread, (b) flax yarn.
Figure 4.10. The 3-step delamination growth in the stitched flax fiber
composites.
Figure 4.11. Typical Mode I load-displacement curves of unstitched and
stitched flax UD and woven laminates.
Figure 4.12. Comparison of R-curves of the flax and glass fiber composites.
Figure 4.13. Fiber bridging during delamination growth; (a) woven flax fabric,
(b) unidirectional flax, and (c) unidirectional glass fiber laminate composite.
Figure 4.14. SEM of a fractured surface of the flax woven fabric composite
after DCB test; (a) fiber pull out and breakage, (b) Fiber-matrix debonding,(c)
a resin-rich region between warp and weft fibers, (d) matrix shear yielding.
Figure 5.1. Schematic of DCB specimen of the stitched UD flax fiber
composite, and stitching parameters.
Figure 5.2. 3D finite element model of the DCB test specimen. A finer mesh
was used at the stitched region.
xviii
Figure 5.3. Three fracture mechanisms involved in delamination propagation.
Figure 5.4. Superposition of two bilinear cohesive law and resultant trilinear
cohesive law (reproduce from [151]).
Figure 5.5. SEM of the delaminated surface for the DCB test specimen of (a)
UD and (b) woven flax fiber composite. Fracture of stitch (flax) yarn occurs at
the delamination surface with minimum fiber pull-out.
Figure 5.6. Experimental GIC values of an unstitched UD flax/epoxy
composite calculated using the MBT, CC and MCC methods proposed under
ASTM D5528 [31].
Figure 5.7. In-plane fiber bridging across the delamination plane of UD flax
fiber composite during DCB test.
Figure 5.8. Force–displacement response of DCB test specimen of unstitched
UD flax fiber composite; FEM & Experimental results.
Figure 5.9. Experimental R-curve and FEM analysis results of bilinear and
trilinear cohesive law.
Figure 5.10. Force–displacement response of DCB test specimen of stitched
UD flax fiber composite; Experimental versus FEM analysis results.
Figure 5.11. Experimental and FEM analysis R-curve of stitched UD flax fiber
composite.
Figure 5.12. Change in crack length against cross-head opening displacement
for experimental and FEM analysis
Figure 5.13. The 3-step delamination growth marking on the load-
displacement curve of DCB test of stitched composite; comparison of
prediction with experimental results.
xix
Figure 5.14. Interlaminar damage (delamination) evolution within the stitched
UD flax fiber composite; (a) the cohesive interface failure propagates and
passes round the stitch elements, (b) the crack then is arrested behind the stitch
elements while the stitch elements are stretched, (c) the stitch elements
fractures and the stored energy is released to propagate the cohesive crack at
higher speed until the next row of stitch elements.
Figure 5.15. Effect of variation of stitch strength; (a) Force–displacement
response and (b) R-curve of the stitched UD flax fiber composite.
Figure 6.1. Damage of 19.6J impact (non-perforation) on both faces of (a)
unstitched woven – PW0, (b) cotton stitched woven – PWC and (c) flax
stitched woven – PWF, (d) unstitched cross-ply – UD0.
Figure 6.2. Damage of 44.6J impact (non-perforation) on both faces of (a)
unstitched woven – PW0, (b) cotton stitched woven – PWC and (c) flax
stitched woven – PWF, (d) unstitched cross-ply – UD0.
Figure 6.3. Impact force-time histories of 19.6 J (non-perforation) for (a)
unstitched woven – PW0, (b) unstitched cross-ply – UD0, (c) cotton stitched
woven – PWC and (d) flax stitched woven – PWF.
Figure 6.4. Impact force-time histories of 44.6 J (perforation) for (a)
unstitched woven – PW0, (b) unstitched cross-ply – UD0, (c) cotton stitched
woven – PWC and (d) flax stitched woven – PWF.
Figure 6.5. Typical representative curve of the force-time responses for (a)
woven flax laminates, (b) cross-ply flax laminate.
Figure 6.6. Through-thickness inspection of the impacted woven laminates by
the cross-sectional microscopy.
xx
Figure 6.7. Schematic view of a woven flax composite under impact loading in
which the failure in the fiber layers due to tensile (𝜎𝑇) or compressive (𝜎𝐶)
stress happens prior to a failure in resin-rich inter-ply layers due to shear stress
(τ).
Figure 6.8. Impact force-displacement response of 19.6 J for (a) unstitched
woven – PW0, (b) unstitched cross-ply – UD0, (c) cotton stitched woven –
PWC and (d) flax stitched woven – PWF.
Figure 6.9. Impact force-displacement response of 44.6 J for (a) unstitched
woven – PW0, (b) unstitched cross-ply – UD0, (c) cotton stitched woven –
PWC and (d) flax stitched woven – PWF.
Figure 6.10. Different zones of impact force-displacement response for all the
flax laminates subjected to (a) 19.6J and (b) 44.6J impact energy.
Figure 6.11. Energy absorption curves under 19.6J and 44.6J impact energies.
Figure 6.12. Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) of fracture surfaces of the
woven flax fiber laminate under transverse impact; (a) warp fiber fracture and
weft fiber/matrix debonding at the fracture surface, (b) fiber bundle fracture,
(c) and (d) river marking, cleavage marking and cracking of matrix.
Figure 6.13. Effect of stitch fiber on damage initiation load and fracture
toughness under impact load.
Figure 7.1. Schematic of (a) the model dimension, and (b) the lay-up used.
Figure 7.2. 3D finite element model of the drop-weight impact test.
Figure 7.3. Schematic of 2D woven fabric reinforcement and the local
coordinate system.
xxi
Figure 7.4. Monotonic and cyclic shear stress-strain curves obtained from
tensile tests on ±45 woven flax/epoxy laminate.
Figure 7.5. Impact force–time curves of numerical simulation versus
experimental results for (a) 19.6J (non-perforation) and (b) 44.6J (perforation).
Figure 7.6. Impact force–displacement curves of numerical simulation versus
experimental results for (a) 19.6J (non-perforation) and (b) 44.6J (perforation).
Figure 7.7. Damage evolution at top and back surface of composite plate and
the all cohesive interfaces during low-velocity impact at specified time T1 to
T4 for (a) 19.6 J and (b) 44.6J impact energy (The damage at T4 is compared
with the actual specimen).
Figure 7.8. Comparison of energy dissipation by delamination with matrix
damage in woven flax fiber composite subjected to (a) 19.6J and (b) 44.6J
impact energy.
Figure 7.9. Permanent indentation after non-perforation impact (19.6J); (a)
average experimental measurements = 3.95 mm; (b) numerical results = 3.42
mm.
Figure 7.10. Deformed shape after full perforation impact (44.6J)
Figure 7.11. (a) Impact force history of unstitched and flax yarn stitched
laminates; (b) Prediction of damage on the impact and back surface of the flax
yarn stitched laminate using reduced FT values.
xxii
Chapter 1 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1. Background
In recent decades, fiber reinforced polymer composites (such as carbon and
glass fiber composites) have been utilized widely in various applications in the
aerospace, automotive, marine and construction sectors thanks to their potential
to combine high mechanical properties with low weight. Despite their many
advantages, there are some serious concerns that challenge the continued use of
these conventional composites. They are mostly synthetic, petroleum based and
require large amounts of energy to be produced. The increase in greenhouse gas
emissions and land pollution stemming from disposed polymer and fiber
reinforced polymer composite products have caused serious environmental
problems and climate change. Although it has been agreed between global
governments to manage and reduce the environment impact drastically, it does
not alter the fact that non-renewable fossil fuel from which our energy and
materials derive from will eventually be depleted. Therefore there is a pressing
need to develop sustainable alternative materials that are not only derived from
renewable resources, but also use less energy to produce, have higher structural
performance and have less detrimental impact on the environment.

2 Introduction
Recently, the use of natural plant fiber reinforcements in polymer composite
materials has gained traction due to their promising properties such as high
specific stiffness, good acoustic insulation and vibration damping, and lower
environmental impacts. These advantages of natural fibers make them suitable
for replacing synthetic glass fiber reinforced composites in many nonstructural
and semi-structural applications, and such substitutions based on short, non-
woven natural fiber preforms are becoming increasingly common in the
transportation and sport goods industries [1–3]. There is great interest to extend
the use of natural fiber composites to structural applications, and an increasing
number of investigations are now beginning to research into continuous long
natural fiber fabric systems to elevate the performance of existing composites
[1,4]. For the same reasons, the studies in this thesis have used long, continuous
flax fibers for the in-plane reinforcement.
Among the natural fibers, flax1 has great potential in reinforcing polymers for
structural applications due to its better consistency and higher mechanical
properties [2,5]. Flax fibers, in the form of short fibers or non-woven mats, are
very common and have been widely used in the composite industry for
producing nonstructural components. However, in order to maximize the
strength and stiffness performance, it is necessary to use long continuous
unidirectional (UD) or woven fibers with optimally twisted yarns [6]. In this
regard, the performance of composite laminates made out of long flax fiber
reinforcements, have been the subject of several experimental studies [7–12]
1 Also known with binomial name “Linum usitatissimum”

Chapter 1 3
and the effects of various influencing factors like fiber preform architecture,
stacking sequence, etc., have been investigated and were found to be significant.
1.2. Problem statement

An important failure mode in these 2D-reinforced orthotropic composite
laminates is the interlaminar failure (i.e. delamination) due to the lack of
reinforcing fibers acting through the thickness of the laminates. The weakness
in the interlaminar properties and consequently, the poor transverse
performance of composite laminates, is usually of concern as it is well
established that sub-surface micro-fractures and delamination damage can arise
from relatively low velocity incidents such as tool drops, stone or debris strike,
etc. For this reason, low-velocity transverse impact behavior of composite
laminates has always been one of the main design considerations in many
composite applications [13,14]. When lower-strength reinforcements, like
natural fibers, are being used, this behavior can be more critical due to
contribution of the fiber failure [15], and this is our main motivation for
studying the impact properties and behavior of the flax/epoxy system as well.
Various techniques have been introduced to enhance the interlaminar strength
of composites; for example engineering the interface adhesion between fiber
and matrix, increasing toughness of matrix, interleaving, stitching and three-
dimensional (3D) fiber architecture [16–20]. Among the various techniques to
improve interlaminar fracture toughness, stitching is more popular because it is
convenient and cost-effective [21]. Although it has been found that stitching
may cause degradation in some mechanical properties of the composite such as

4 Introduction
the tensile strength, it has been utilized in the manufacture of advanced 3D
composite materials with notable success since the early 1980s. So, some
research has been devoted to optimizing the stitching parameters [22–32].
Previous studies have investigated the effects of different parameters such as
stitching thread type, thread diameter, and stitch density on the performance of
the stitched synthetic fiber composites. It has been found that besides the stitch
density and type, the stitch distribution also plays an important role in
determining the interlaminar fracture toughness of the composites [33,34]. But,
unlike the synthetic fiber reinforced composites, the influence of stitching on
the properties of natural fiber composites is not as widely studied, and its
performance – when dealing with natural fiber composites – in view of stitch
density and material type is not that well understood [35].
1.3. Objectives of the research

The main purpose of this thesis is to investigate the effects of through-the-
thickness stitch reinforcements as well as preform architecture on the
mechanical properties, interlaminar fracture and impact behavior of the flax
fiber laminates impregnated by thermoset epoxy matrix. Epoxy/ flax fiber
composite systems with different stitch fiber areal fraction, stitch material and
in-plane fiber architecture (using available materials in the market for composite
application) were manufactured. The specific objectives of this research are to:
 Characterize mechanical properties including tensile and flexural
strength and stiffness, Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness and low-
velocity impact behavior of unstitched and stitched flax fiber laminates.

Chapter 1 5
 Understand the effects of through-the-thickness stitching on the
mechanical performance and fracture mechanism of flax fiber
composites when different stitch material and stitch areal densities are
used.
 Subject the flax fiber composites to low velocity impact to study the
effects of through-the-thickness stitching on the damage resistance,
impact energy absorption, and failure characteristics.
 Develop a numerical approach to model delamination crack propagation
of stitched flax fiber composites, and measure their interlaminar fracture
toughness through a virtual Double Cantilever Beam (DCB) test.
 Implement a numerical simulation to study the material behavior and
damage mechanisms at macroscopic scale of the woven flax fiber
composite under low-velocity impact loading.
The results of this study may contribute to a deep understanding of the
effectiveness of through-the-thickness stitching in enhancing the performance
of flax/epoxy composite laminates. It could also provide insights into the
material response of composites made of flax fibers through numerical
modeling in applications subjected to impact loads such as automotive segments.
1.4. Structure of the thesis

The thesis is organized as follows. A review of the state of the art on flax fibers
and their composites is presented in Chapter 2. Then, Chapter 3 describes the
material, experimental methodology, manufacturing technique and simulation
strategies used in this study. Chapter 4 presents the results and discussion of the
6 Introduction
tensile, flexural and DCB tests of various un/stitched flax fiber composites.
Based on the results and observations of Chapter 4, a numerical model is
developed in Chapter 5 to simulate delamination propagation in stitched flax
fiber composite. Chapter 6 is devoted to the experimental assessment of the low-
velocity impact behavior of the un/stitched composites. A numerical simulation
of the low-velocity impact test which was used to study and predict the material
behavior and damage propagation of the woven flax fiber composite is then
presented in Chapter 7. Finally, the conclusion of the study and our
recommendations for future work are presented in Chapter 8. The outline of this
thesis is schematically illustrated in Figure 1.1.

Chapter 1 7
Figure 1.1. Schematic outline of this thesis.

8 A Literature review
Chapter 2
A Literature review
2.1. Introduction
This chapter presents a brief review of natural fiber composites and their various
properties, with a particular focus on flax fiber composites. The constitution and
characterization of these composites are outlined and various methods to
improve their mechanical properties are described. The effects of fiber
architecture, fabrication and the interactions between the matrix and
reinforcement are then briefly discussed. This is followed by an overview of the
low-velocity impact behavior of laminated composites. Then, the effects of
through-the-thickness stitching on mechanical and impact properties of
composite laminates are reviewed. After reviewing latest studies on the
numerical modeling of natural fiber composites, this chapter ends with
highlighting the numerical methods reported for the stitched composite as well
as the failure analysis of woven fabric composites.

Chapter 2 9
2.2. Trend in using plant fibers to reinforce polymers

Recently, the use of plant fibers to reinforce the polymers have grown widely
in many applications thanks to their promising mechanical properties as well as
environmental and economic benefits compared to other types of available
natural fibers (Figure 2.1). Plant fibers own unique advantages of combining
good mechanical and vibration absorption (damping) properties with low
weight. Good acoustic and thermal insulation properties due to the hollow
structure of the plant cell (lumen) make them a very suitable material for interior
components, especially in automotive industries. Above all, they are renewable
(yearly based), sustainable and carbon dioxide (CO2) neutral, which make them
a desirable material while the environmental awareness is increasing [36–39].
It is worth mentioning that the term ‘natural fibers’ will be used to refer to plant
fibers onward in this study.
Classification of Fibers
Natural Synthetic
Plant Animal Mineral Synthetic

polymer
Natural
polymer
Metal Ceramic
Wood Fiber Non-Wood Sillk Wool Hair Asbestos (others)
Hard
Recycling
wood/Softw
woods Bast Leaf Seed/Fruit Stalk Grass, Grain
ood
Bamboo,
Pineapple, Cotton,
Flax, Hemp, Wheat, Bagasse,
Abaca Kapok,
Maize, Esparto,
Jute, Ramie, Henequen, Milkweed,
Brley, Rye, Sabei,
Kenaf Sisal, Coir, Oil
Oat, Rice Phragmites,
Banana palm
Communis
Figure 2.1. Classification of reinforcing fibers (reproduced from [40]).

Natural fibers have generally been considered as an alternative to synthetic
based glass fibers, as one of the widely used and market dominant
reinforcements in conventional composites [37,41]. Glass fibers have desirable
mechanical properties for applications in automotive, aerospace, marine and
construction. However, they are costly in terms of energy to produce and recycle.
It has been shown that plant fibers are the most appropriate and accessible
natural based alternative to glass fibers in many nonstructural applications when
the mechanical properties respect to density are taken into account.
Besides, natural fibers are environmentally superior to glass fibers. Their lower
density accompanying with good mechanical properties and environmental
advantageous make them a suitable reinforcement for polymers which can be
utilized in higher performance applications. Hence, extensive investigations
have been carried out to improve the properties of composites made of natural
fibers, with the purpose of extending the use of these fibers to structural
applications [4,1]. Table 2.1 shows the advantages of natural fibers over
synthetic glass fibers.
Table 2.1. General advantages of natural fibers over synthetic glass fiber [37].
Natural fibers Glass fibers

Density Low Twice of natural fibers
Cost Relatively Low Relatively high
Energy consumption Low High
Disposal Biodegradable Not biodegradable
Recyclability Yes No
Renewability Yes No
CO2 neutral Yes No
Health risk when inhaled No Yes
Abrasion to machines No Yes
Chapter 2 11
Consequently, the production of natural fibers for composites purposes is
growing rapidly. Global natural fiber composites market size reached $2.1B in
2010, with on average annual growth rate of 15% in last five years [42]. The
production of wood and natural fiber composites in the European Union
exceeded 352,000 tons in 2012, in which 92,000 tons belonged to natural fiber
composites. This was claimed to be an average of 10-15% of the total composite
market at that year [43]. It is also expected that their production will exceed
370,000 tons per year by 2020.
As of today, automotive interior parts are the most important application
segments for natural fiber composites, where the majority of them use short
fibers for injection molding and compression molding manufacturing. However,
by developing natural fibers for higher performance applications, their use will
be expanded and they will attract more attention in composite industries.
Figure 2.2 shows the performance playground and corresponding applications
for natural fiber (i.e. flax) composites, which depicts their potential to be used
from injection-molded components for mass production (moderate properties)

to structural composites by using specially designed fiber textiles like UD
prepregs.
350
300
UD flax
Composites
250 (45 vol%)
© CELC © Artengo © Museeuw Bikes

Tensile Strength (MPa)
200
150 Woven flax Composites

(45 vol%)
100 © Urge Bike © NoTox
50 Needle felt
Short fiber
(30 vol%) © AFT Plasturgie © Magis
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Young's Modulus (GPa)
Figure 2.2. The performance and corresponding applications of composites made of natural
fiber (flax) in different fiber forms (reproduced form [44]).
However, there are still important issues that limit their future use, including
long-term performance and the ability to be able to predict performance during
service. Poor compatibility between fiber and matrix that and subsequently low
fracture toughness, sensitivity to temperature, moisture absorption, ultraviolet
that cause an initial crack and high variability in quality and homogeneity due
to the non-constant fiber properties fiber properties have been reported as the
main issues for composites made of natural fibers. Currently, many researches
are going on with the aim of finding new methods to fix these issues in order to
use natural fiber composites in load-bearing applications and replace the less
eco-friendly materials.
Chapter 2 13
2.3. Flax fiber composites

2.3.1. Flax fibers
Flax (Linum usitatissimum) is generally reported as one of the important natural
fibers in terms of good mechanical properties with a lower density which has
the potential to replace synthetic glass fibers in many applications [2,8,44–46].
This is mainly due to some promising characteristics in terms of microstructure,
chemical composition, and morphological properties of flax fiber in comparison
with other natural fibers.
Flax fiber can refer to either elementary or technical fiber. However, due to the
clear difference between the physical and mechanical properties, a distinction
should be explicitly made between them. Technical fibers are constituted from
10 to 40 elementary fibers, sticking together into a long thin fiber bundle
(Figure 2.3). The tensile strength and the initial modulus of elementary fibers
were found to be 1500-1800 MPa and 60-80 GPa, respectively. Whereas, these
properties for technical fibers were estimated to be about 800-1500 MPa and
55-75 GPa [47] due to load transferring between elementary fibers through
weak inter-fibrillar bonding, namely pectin, lignin, and hemicellulose.

Elementary fiber Technical fiber

(Also known as a fiber or cell) (Also known as a fiber bundle)
Figure 2.3. Schematic and SEM images of technical fibers versus elementary fibers (adapted
from [44]).
The chemical and physical characteristics of flax fibers have been the subject of
many studies [36,45,48–55]. Figure 2.4 shows the schematic of the hierarchical
structure of flax fiber from stem to microfibril. As can be seen, the flax fiber
cell wall, as for most plant fibers, is constituted of different layers, the primary
and secondary wall in which the secondary wall is subdivided into three layers
S1 to S3, forming together a multi-layered hollow (called lumen) tube
configuration. The S2 layer has the biggest dimension, almost 75-80% of the
cell wall, which is mainly constituted by highly crystalline cellulose microfibrils
fixed in helical structure with a characteristic spiral angle called microfibrillar
angle (MFA) along the fiber direction.

Chapter 2 15
Secondary wall S2 (75-80% of total thickness)

Microfibrillar angle (MFA) ≈10°
Figure 2.4. Hierarchal structure of flax fiber from stem to microfibril (figures were reproduced
from [44,54]).
In general, cellulose molecules among the other main chemical constituents, i.e.
hemicellulose, lignin, and pectin (for some plant fibers), are accounted as the
main structural constituent of a plant fiber cell which stick together to form the
microfibrils [54]. Such cellulose microfibrils and their arrangement (MFA),
which can be influenced by many factors such as climatic conditions, age, and
degradation process, determine the final mechanical properties of the fiber (i.e.
strength and stiffness). Table 2.2 gives an overview of the average mechanical
and physical properties reported in the literature for flax fibers as well as some
well-known natural reinforcing fibers. As can be seen, the cell wall of flax fiber
in comparison with other natural fibers contains a high level of cellulose content
(67-75% of weight) with a small MFA of 10%. These inimitable characteristics
of flax fibers yield higher mechanical properties in terms of strength and
stiffness [56].
It is also well known that the fiber length or aspect ratio has a great impact on
the mechanical propitiates of composites. Flax fibers have a relatively high
aspect ratio (fiber length/fiber diameter) which, depending on the fiber/matrix
interfacial bonding strength, is generally longer than the fiber critical length in
the composite. This advantage of flax fiber makes it possible to utilize the
maximum performance of fibers in terms of strength and stiffness due to a better
stress transfer between fiber and matrix.
Table 2.2. Chemical, morphological and mechanical properties of some natural fibers used for
reinforcing polymers [1,39,45,57–62].
Chemical and Physical Properties Mechanical Properties

Natural Aspect Tensile Tensile
fiber Density Cellulose MFA Elongation
ratio, strength Stiffness
(g/cm3) (wt%) (°) (%)
L/d (MPa) (GPa)
Flax 1.38-1.45 65-85 1700 10 800-1500 60-75 1.2-1.6

Hemp 1.4-1.6 70 1000 6 550-900 40-65 1.6
Cotton 1.5-1.6 90 900 - 300-600 12 3-8
Bamboo 1.4 26-43 1500 - 750-950 30-50 1.9
Jute 1.4-1.5 61-71 150 8 400-800 13-26 1.8
Ramie 1.44-1.5 68-76 7 - 500 44 2
Coir 1.1-1.3 32-43 25 30-49 220 6 15-25
Sisal 1.2-1.3 65 8 10-22 600-700 38 2-7
Chapter 2 17
The tensile performance of various natural fibers and E-glass are compared in
the Ashby plot of Figure 2.5. It can be clearly seen that glass fibers are always
superior in the absolute tensile strength and stiffness properties. Nevertheless,
when the factors of weight and cost are considered, the performance of flax
fibers is comparable with that of glass fibers. Shah [5] performed a comparative
study and showed that flax fibers (and bast fibers in general) offer high specific
properties which are comparable to glass due to the latter’s higher density.
Figure 2.5. Ashby plots comparing (a) absolute tensile properties, (b) tensile properties per
unit density for different natural fibers and E-glass [5].
2.3.2. Flax fiber reinforced composites
The performance of flax fiber reinforced composites have been studied by
numerous authors [2,7–9,38,47,50,52,63–69] and the effect of different factors
such as fiber processing and refinement, aging, fiber surface treatment, etc. have
been investigated. Apart from the effect of intrinsic properties of the flax fibers,
the performance of their composites can be influenced by other variables like
reinforcements’ forms (i.e. short fibers, long fibers, multiaxials and
unidirectionals), matrix type (i.e. thermoplastic and thermosetting) and

manufacturing techniques (i.e. injection moulding, compression moulding,
vacuum infusion, resin transfer moulding and prepregging). The effects of latter
factors, similar to those of conventional fiber composites, are significant in
determining the composite performance.
The absolute and specific tensile properties (with and without considering the
factor of weight) of different natural fiber composites in various composite type
in terms of matrix and reinforcement form are compared with that of glass fiber
composites in Figure 2.6. In this plot, flax fiber composites are always placed
at the most right side of the natural fiber composites’ bars as flax fibers usually
offer higher reinforcing potential among other natural fibers, Table 2.2.
Although the absolute properties of the natural fiber composites tend to be lower
than that of glass fiber composites, the specific properties lead to promising
values, indicating the possibility of replacing glass fiber by natural fiber
counterparts, particularly in the stiffness-critical applications.
However, bearing in mind the fibers’ vulnerability to thermal degradation,
moisture absorption and lacking information about the in-service behavior of
natural fiber composites, it is necessary to consider variables other than tensile
performance depending on the component function and objective [5,8].
Nevertheless, it is rather evident that for load-bearing applications, the random
mats must be replaced by aligned continuous flax fibers such as unidirectional
(UD) or textiles commonly used for conventional fibers [70]. This is mainly due
to the higher aspect ratio of flax fibers (Table 2.2) which can be regarded as
long fiber reinforcement if a proper fiber/matrix interfacial strength is achieved.
Therefore, researchers have looked into understanding and developing different

Chapter 2 19
fiber preform architectures in order to obtain higher mechanical performance of
composites [6,9,47,71].
Natural fiber composites Glass fiber composites
Figure 2.6. Comparison of the absolute and specific tensile properties of natural fiber
composites with E-glass composites [5].
2.3.3. Fiber Architecture
Four different types of flax fiber bundles are currently available for using in
composites: hackled flax, doubled flax, roving, and yarn [47]. Figure 2.7
illustrates the selection of flax fibers for different fiber preform architectures.
Similar to synthetic fibers, composites of unidirectional (UD) flax fibers have
the highest tensile properties in longitudinal direction [71] since the full
reinforcing potential of flax fibers is used. The UD fibers also allow having
different preform lay-ups with various stacking sequences and angle

combinations in order to provide desired properties in different orientations.
Nevertheless, they are not applicable for complex geometry parts as the fiber
bundles are detached easily during draping on mold, and this results in non-
uniform fiber dispersion in the composite. For that reason, other types of
reinforcement architectures, such as textiles, are generally used due to easier
composite processing.
Textile fiber reinforced composites can be used to produce many products with
a complex geometry and the desired performance. However, textile fiber
reinforced composites normally have lower mechanical properties due to having
lower fiber volume fraction, fiber misorientation as well as fiber damages
caused by twisting, weaving or braiding process.
Figure 2.7. Different flax fiber processing and selection of fiber preforms for composite [47].
In textile-based natural fiber composites, one of the challenging parts is to have
a textile produced by an appropriate yarn so as to use the maximum load-bearing

Chapter 2 21
capacity of the fibers to be suitable for engineering applications [6,72].
Although flax fiber yarns with a low level of twist lead to improved
impregnation of the polymer resin, they are very weak to be used in textile
processing machines, i.e. weaving, braiding or knitting. On the other hand,
increasing the twist level of flax fiber yarn results in misorientation of fibers,
and therefore reduction in mechanical properties of impregnated yarns
compared to UD composite [73,74]. Moreover, twisting can induce more
damage to technical and elementary fibers, and therefore degraded their
mechanical properties. Consequently, an optimum level of twist angle must be
used so that the maximum reinforcing potential of yarn (un-impregnated and
impregnated) can be achieved, Figure 2.8.
(a) (b)
Figure 2.8. (a) Effect of twist on yarn tensile strength and failure mechanism; (b) Tensile
strength of (●) long and (□) short flax fiber epoxy impregnated yarns as a function of twist
level [74].
Besides, further processing the flax fibers after scutching and combining step,
i.e. spinning and weaving to a textile, are the most expensive processes and
consume a large amount of energy [47,66]. In this regard, Shah et al. [74]
developed an analytical model to study the effects of the twist angle of flax yarn
on tensile properties based on the modified rule of mixture. Their developed
model was compared with experimental data, and good agreement was reported.
Goutianos et al. [6] developed high-performance natural fiber composites for
structural applications using continuous natural fiber reinforcements like UD
tapes or woven fabrics. Flax yarns with different twist angles were also tested
to find out the optimum twist in order to balance processability and mechanical
properties. Using the optimum twisted yarn, they produced various composite
laminates produced by fabrics with different weave structure and composite
processing technique and then characterized the mechanical properties. Their
study showed that continuous flax fiber reinforced composites were able to
compete with glass composites in terms of stiffness particularly from weight
reduction point of view.
It was observed that the tensile strength of impregnated yarn was improved by
decreasing the twist angle due to improved permeability, fewer damages to
technical fibers and better fiber alignment along the loading direction. In fact, a
twisted impregnated yarn is exactly similar to an off-axis UD composite in
which the tensile strength value is directly dependent to UD fibers orientation
angle. This features the necessity of using low twist yarn to utilize flax fiber’s
maximum performance.
Weagar [75] described a new technology of producing twistless yarns which are
developed by Composite Evolution Co. to optimize yarn stiffness. This

Chapter 2 23
company used a unique twistless technology to ensure a high degree of fiber
alignment, and improve the impregnation and performance.
The mechanical properties of natural fiber composites made out of long flax
fiber reinforcements have been the subject of several experimental studies. The
fiber preform architecture, stacking sequence and number of layers were found
to have a significant influence on the tensile and compressive properties of
composites [7]. For a wide range of fiber architectures such as woven, UD and
random orientation, Bensadoun et al. [8] have conducted static and fatigue
tension test to investigate the fatigue behavior of the flax fiber/epoxy
composites. They observed that the laminates with better fiber alignment such
as UD and Quasi-UD, not only show higher static strength and stiffness, but
also lead to the best fatigue characteristics (Figure 2.9).
(a) (b)
Figure 2.9. Comparison of static and post-fatigue tensile properties of flax–epoxy composite
after exposing to fatigue cycling up to 500,000 cycles, (a) the tensile modulus and (b) the
ultimate tensile strength [8].
Muralidhar [7] studied the effect of lay-up stacking sequence and number of
preform layers on the tensile and compressive properties of the plain woven flax
fabric/epoxy composite. Fiber volume fraction was found to be the main

parameter governing the tensile properties, whereas the increase in the number
of layers deteriorates their tensile strength.
The influences of yarn linear density, weave configuration and stacking
sequence of the woven flax fiber composites on the in-plane fracture toughness
have been studied by Liu et al. [9]. They performed a compact tension test to
evaluate the composite fracture toughness. It was found that the fracture
toughness of the composite is mainly dominated by the number of woven plies
as well as the linear density of the yarn (i.e. fiber volume fraction), rather than
the preform fiber architecture.
2.3.4. Thermoset resins
The role of the polymer matrix as the second constituent of composites is to
provide the composites’ shape, environmental tolerance, surface appearance,
overall durability and transferring the load to the reinforcing fibers as the
structural constituent of composites. There exist two major polymer types:
thermoset and thermoplastics. The difference between the chemical and
physical properties of these polymers determines the composite properties and
manufacturing process.
The thermoset polymers, unlike the thermoplastic ones, are liquid at room
temperature and molecularly cross-linked in a 3D network during curing which
then are not able to be molten. Due to these cross-link networks, the thermosets
generally yield better strength and stiffness compared to thermoplastics, and
therefore are a preferred matrix in fiber reinforced composites for structural
applications. Moreover, due to the low molecular mass of thermosets, their

Chapter 2 25
viscosity is low, and this provides better processability and impregnation of the
fibers by the resin using many common manufacturing techniques such as
vacuum infusion, resin transfer molding (RTM), pultrusion, autoclave, and hand
lay-up.
Thermoset resins also have a good chemical, thermal and creep resistance and
need a lower processing temperature. However, they are normally brittle and
have lower toughness [76]. Thanks to the low processing temperature and
desirable mechanical properties, thermoset resins are a suitable and preferable
matrix for flax fiber composites, particularly in high-performance applications
[5,36,54]. Utilizing long flax fibers in a thermoset matrix usually offers higher
mechanical properties, as shown in Figure 2.6.
2.3.5. Fiber-matrix bonding
One of the challenges of natural fiber reinforced composites is the poor
compatibility (adhesion) between fiber and matrix. The efficiency of stress
transfer from the matrix to the fibers, and consequently the composite’s stiffness
and strength can be reduced with a weak fiber/matrix interface by crack
initiation and propagation along the interface, i.e. debonding mechanism. Many
investigations have been conducted in order to improve the flax fiber/matrix
interface properties (i.e. interfacial bonding) and various physical and chemical
methods have been developed [2,69,77,78]. These methods are summarized in
Figure 2.10.
Fiber Treatment
Physical method Chemical method
Plasma Corona Thermo Enzyme Maleated Alkaline Silane

Acetylation
treatment treatment treatment treatment coupling treatment treatment
Figure 2.10. Classification of natural fiber treatment methods [1].
The physical treatments change the surface properties of fibers and thus improve
the mechanical bonding between the fiber and the matrix, whereas the chemical
treatments use chemical methods and coupling agents for enhancing the
fiber/matrix adhesion. For example, Huo et al. [79] investigated the effects of
various chemical modifications on the mechanical performance of
flax/vinylester and compared with E-glass/ vinylester. The study showed that
the specific properties of chemically treated UD flax fiber composites are higher
those of E-glass composites. Also, a 30% increase in the interfacial and the
interlaminar shear strength of Acrylic acid treated flax fiber composite was
observed.
2.3.6. Composite processing
Polymer matrix composites with synthetic fiber reinforcements are processed
and manufactured by numerous methods such as hand lay-up, prepreg, liquid
compression molding, pultrusion, filament winding, autoclave processing and
liquid composite molding (e.g. resin transfer molding, vacuum infusion, and
resin infusion) techniques [76]. The majority of these manufacturing methods
can be utilized in order to process natural fiber composites. Nevertheless,

Chapter 2 27
because of specific characteristics of the plant fibers, some parameters should
be controlled to have a successful manufacturing process. Moisture, thermal
transition temperatures, exotherm2, volatile components, and rheology3 are the
key parameters of processing natural fiber composites [36]. Furthermore, due
to surface roughness, morphology and lower degree of fiber alignment, natural
fiber preforms normally show higher resistance against compressing, and
thereby a higher clamping force (of the mold) is needed. This means that low
fiber volume fractions are achieved if the manufacturing techniques like hand
lay-up and vacuum infusion are used, in which the ultimate compaction pressure
is only 1 Atm [80]. Figure 11 presents Ashby plots which compare the tensile
strength and stiffness of various natural fiber composites with different fiber
architectures as well as different manufacturing techniques.
Figure 2.11. The performance of various natural fiber composites manufactured using
different techniques [46].
2 The heat generated during polymerization or cross-linking (curing) of polymer resin.

3 The science of flow and deformation of matter.
2.4. Impact behavior of laminated composites

2.4.1. Composite laminates under low-velocity impact
The transverse performance of composite laminates is a concern when they are
known to suffer low-velocity incidents such as tool drops, stone or debris strike,
etc. Typically, incidents occurring below 10 m/s are considered as low-velocity
impact [81]. The damage size and type caused by an impact generally determine
the residual properties of the structure made of composite laminates [82–85].
Hence, the low-velocity transverse impact behavior of composite laminates has
always been one of the main design considerations in many applications [13,14].
Low-velocity impact behavior (such as dropping weight) analysis for composite
materials generally consists of three major parts: i. Damage resistance, ii.
Damage tolerance and iii. Energy absorption [10,85–88].
i. Damage resistance is defined as the ability of a material to resist
permanent changes due to a loading event beyond the design load. The
damage resistance of composite laminates is normally assessed after an
impact event by measuring the damaged area using Non-Destructive
Inspection (NDI) and visual inspection.
ii. Damage tolerance refers to the ability of a material to carry the load after
a permanent change taking place. Once a laminated composite has been
impacted, the residual compression strength is usually of most interest
due to the presence of nonvisible delamination as the main failure mode
under low-velocity impact. Delamination in laminates can reduce the
bending stiffness by dividing a laminate into sub-laminates. A
delaminated laminate is also susceptible to buckling under compressive

Chapter 2 29
loading. Compression after impact (CAI) and Flexure after impact (FAI)
tests are commonly used to evaluate and characterize the residual
properties and functionality of composite laminates.
iii. Energy absorption is characterized by the amount of impact energy
which is dissipated by the material through the development of internal
damages. The absorbed energy in low-velocity impact can be
determined by calculating the area under the force-displacement curve.
The maximum capacity of a laminate to absorb impact energy can be
determined when the laminate is penetrated – i.e. full perforation impact
test.
Depending on the application requirement, the aforementioned impact
properties, as design parameters, should be determined. For instance, for a
product with energy absorption purposes, the ultimate perforation energy should
be maximized [86,89]. Literature suggests that the fiber strength and the fiber
volume fraction have a strong effect on the perforation characteristics of
composites, whereas matrix type, fiber orientation and architecture, and
thickness only play a secondary role [47,85]. The effects of these factors can be
even more complex when a lower-strength reinforcing fiber (e.g. from natural
origin) is used.
The load and energy histories of low-velocity impact can yield important
information about the damage initiation and propagation mechanisms. Typical
force and energy histories for drop-weight impact tests of non-penetrated and
penetrated laminates are given in Figure 2.12. The characteristic values of

damage initiation force (P1), maximum force (Pmax), maximum absorbed energy
and contact duration are achievable from these graphs.
(a)
Pmax
Energy recovered due

to elastic response
EAbsorbed
P1 (absorbed energy )
(Damage initiation)
Energy dissipated by damage

development
(b)
Pmax
P1
EAbsorbed
(Perforation energy )
Friction force of impactor
Figure 2.12. Typical impact load–time and impact energy–time histories of (a) non-penetrated
and (b) penetrated laminate [87].
Chapter 2 31
The impact damage mechanism of composite laminates is a very complex
process, a combination of delamination, matrix crack, fiber shear-out, fiber
breakage, and surface buckling, etc. [87]. The matrix cracks are believed to be
the primary impact damage mode in all types of composites [90]. However, it
was shown that formation of matrix micro-crack does not lead to a noticeable
reduction in stiffness of the laminates. However, the local and global stiffness
of laminates are strongly affected by initiation of delaminations and fiber
breakages. Hence, delamination threshold loads, which generally occurs prior
to fiber breakage, is identifiable from the first sudden load drop in the impact
load-time history (i.e. P1) [90,91]. The first delamination normally appears
between the top plies for stiff laminates, and forms between bottom plies when
the laminate is thin or flexible. A typical impact damage mechanism for
laminated composite is depicted in Figure 2.13.
Figure 2.13. Schematic illustration of a typical impact damage mode for composite
laminate [87].
Many factors influence how much damage is incurred by a laminate from a
foreign object impact event. Impact velocity and energy, laminate thickness,
boundary conditions, the shape of the striker's head, etc. are of the most
important external factors for a given laminate. ISO 6603 and ASTM D7136
[81,92] defined standard procedures for measuring the impact behavior of a
synthetic fiber reinforced composite through a drop-weight impact event.
2.4.2. Low-velocity impact behavior of natural fiber composites
With the purpose of extending the use of natural fibers to higher performance
applications, the low-velocity impact response and energy absorption behavior
of their composites, using drop-weight impact test, have been the subject of
several investigations [10–12,15,47,93–100].
The effect of fiber preform architecture and laminate thickness on the low-
velocity impact performance of jute/methacrylated soybean oil were studied by
Dhakal et al. [99]. Both the fiber orientation and laminate thickness exhibited a
significant influence on the impact resistance and peak load. It was also
observed that improving the fiber/matrix interface through treatment of jute
fibers led to improved impact resistance of the composite.
Impact behavior of UD, cross-ply [0/90°] and mat hemp preforms with epoxy
resin was investigated by means of drop weight test by Santulli et al. [94]. It
was observed, although the mechanical properties (i.e. tensile, modulus and
flexural strength) owned higher for UD and cross-ply laminates, the mat fiber
laminate showed better impact resistance in terms of penetration energy and
damage area. It was concluded that more complex and tailored fiber architecture
of composite would likely increase the impact performance of the composites.
Vasconcellos et al. [97] studied the post-impact fatigue behavior of woven
fabric hemp/epoxy composite through cyclic tensile tests and the acoustic
Chapter 2 33
emission monitoring to analyze damage mechanisms. Their results showed that
while the residual tensile strength decreases with increase in the impact energy,
the elastic modulus remains almost unchanged. Fiber/matrix interface and
matrix micro-cracking were observed as the main fracture mechanism caused
by non-perforation impact test.
Caprino et al. [100] studied the effects of various preform architecture including
UD, woven fabric and cross-ply (0/90)s, as well as the laminate thickness on the
behavior of hemp/epoxy composites subjected to a low-velocity impact. They
also validated the existing semi-empirical models and analysis methods – i.e.
Hertzian contact law and exponential indentation law – valid for synthetic fiber
laminates and found that these models were not able to interpret the impact
behavior of bio-laminates. Moreover, unlike the conventional composites, a
very limited delaminated area was found at the impact point for all the laminates.
In another study [11], the impact and post-impact behavior of flax/epoxy with
two different lay-up sequences ([0/90/45/-45]2s and [90/0/-45/45]2s) were
investigated by means of drop-weight impact and compression after impact tests,
respectively. Similar to the previous study, a linear correlation was found
between impact energy, absorbed energy and maximum bending deflection.
Also, a maximum loss of 30% in compressive strength was observed for the
2.85 mm thickness laminates impacted by 10J. Comparing the force-deflection,
absorbed energy and damage size of impact and indentation tests showed that
the flax/epoxy composites response under transverse loading condition were not
rate-dependent when the loading rate was below 2.98m/s.

Petrucci et al. [12] studied the impact and post impact performance of
natural/glass fiber hybrid composites through drop weight impact and FAI tests,
respectively. They manufactured various laminates through stacking Hemp,
basalt, flax and glass biaxial textile and processed using vacuum infusion.
Enhanced flexural modulus was observed for all the hybrid composites in the
presence of glass fibers, and among them, flax/basalt/glass hybrid composite
had the highest flexural performance before and after impact. This was
attributed to the better interaction between glass and flax fibers. In terms of
impact properties, although the natural/glass fiber hybrid composites had higher
impact resistance, pure natural fiber hybrid composites (flax/hemp) offered
better penetration energy.
With the purpose of characterizing ballistic properties of natural fiber reinforced
composites, a ballistic impact test conducted on plain woven flax, Hemp and
Jute fabric reinforced composites as well as composite/mild steel hybrid [101].
It was observed that the flax composite absorbed the impact energy slightly
more than mild steel and other composites. However, composite/steel hybrid
(steel backing) showed clearly better performance. A similar study was also
carried out using an aluminum plate for backing by Kuan et al. [102] and a
significant enhancement in the tensile and impact properties of the laminates
was reported.
Chapter 2 35
2.5. Through-the-thickness stitched composites

Composite materials mainly suffer from weak interlaminar properties due to
lack of out-of-plane reinforcement. Hence, layer-by-layer separation, which is
known as delamination, is usually the weakest failure mode in laminated
composites. So far, various techniques have been introduced to enhance the
interlaminar strength of composites; for example engineering the interface
adhesion between fiber and matrix, increasing the toughness of matrix,
interleaving and three-dimensional (3D) fiber architecture [16–20]. Three-
dimensional textile technologies (3D fiber architecture) such as 3D weaving,
braiding, knitting, and stitching have been developed and widely utilized in
order to provide through-the-thickness reinforcement into the composites and
improve the interlaminar properties [19]. Among the different 3D fiber
reinforcements, the stitching process became more popular by reason of
convenience and cost-effectiveness of this method [21].
Since the early 1980s, stitching has been utilized in the manufacture of advanced
3D composite material with notable success, Figure 2.14. The aircraft industry
was the first one to start an investigation on the stitching of composites to
improve properties of fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) joints. They investigated
the feasibility of stitching wing-to-spar and single-lab joints of composite
components to increase the failure strength and reduce the probability of sudden
catastrophic failure. The result of these investigations acknowledged the
benefits of stitched joints in comparison to conventional joining techniques such
as adhesive bonding and co-curing [21].

(a) (b)
Figure 2.14. Example of (a) complex preform manufacturing through stitching and (b)
commercially available robotic stitching machine (Altin Nahtechnik GmbH) [21].
Two main characteristics of the stitching process can be considered as the main
reason for its attractiveness and popularity. Firstly, stitching is a cost-effective
method for joining stacked fabric plies along their edges to make the preform
easier to handle before resin infusion or liquid molding. The second advantage
of stitching is that it can improve the delamination resistance and impact
damage tolerance of composites [23,82,103–105]. Consequently, a considerable
amount of research has been devoted to evaluating the different properties of
stitched composite laminates.
Despite these advantages, damage to the preform induced by the stitching
process is the main drawback of this technique, where it can deteriorate the
properties of the composite and therefore limit its use. Stitching can cause
different types of damage to fiber preforms. These damages are: fiber breakage,
fiber misalignment, fiber crimping, resin-rich areas, stitch distortions,
compaction, and matrix micro-cracking, in which fiber breakage, misalignment

Chapter 2 37
and crimping (Figure 2.15) are the most common types of damages in the
stitched composites [21,105–107].
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 2.15. Examples of stitching damages; (a) in-plane fiber breakage, (b) local
misalignment of fibers around a stitch and (c) schematic of fiber crimping [21,108].
In addition to preform damage, the stitch fibers also can be damaged by twisting,
bending, sliding and looping during stitching process, particularly when brittle
fibers like carbon are used as stitching thread [109,110]. In this regard,
Weinberg et al. [111,112] invented a sewing machine needle and a sewing
mechanism which is useful for stitching and joining fabrics with a brittle thread
(Figure 2.16).
Figure 2.16. Diagrammatic side view of the sewing machine and its particular needle
developed for the brittle thread (reproduced from [112]).
There is variety of stitching patterns which are used in the composite industry,
and of those the most popular patterns are lock stitch, modified lock stitch, and
chain stitch, as shown in Figure 2.17. The lock stitch pattern is mainly utilized
in the apparel industry for aesthetic purposes as the loop of needle and bobbin
threads is hidden within the preform. However, the looping process between the
needle and bobbin threads creates disruption to the preform. To avoid these
defects inside the laminate, the modified lock stitch is normally used for
structural purposes in which the loops of the bobbin and needle yarn are placed
at the outer surface of the preform [21,27].
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 2.17. Schematic illustration of (a) lock stitch, (b) modified lock stitch and (c) chain
stitch.
2.5.1. Effect of stitching on mechanical properties and toughness
of composites
2.5.1.1. Interlaminar fracture toughness
The growing use of stitched composites in various load-bearing applications
required an in-depth understanding of their mechanical properties and failure
mechanisms. Consequently, a considerable amount of researches have been
devoted to evaluating and understanding the effect of stitching on different
properties of composites. Interlaminar crack growth (i.e. delamination) of
stitched graphite/epoxy laminate with Kevlar thread, was initially investigated

Chapter 2 39
by Tan et al. [113] in the early 1980s. It was experimentally shown that through
the thickness stitching effectively arrested delamination progression. In addition,
it was revealed that stitching had different effects on laminates’ ultimate
strength.
Numerous studies have experimentally investigated the effects of different
parameters such as stitching thread type and stitch density on the performance
of the stitched synthetic fiber composites [24,26–28,33,34,108,114–116].
The influence of stitch distribution and in-plane fiber orientation on interlaminar
fracture toughness of stitched glass/polyester composites was investigated by
Solaimurugan et al. [108]. It was shown that it improves with an increase in
fiber orientation angle. Figure 2.18 compares the load versus crack opening
displacement (COD) and delamination mechanism – stable against stick-slip
propagation – of the unstitched and stitched laminates. The fractured and pulled-
out stitch fibers can be easily seen from Figure 2.18b.

(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 2.18. DCB test of (a) unstitched and (b) stitched specimen; (c) Load versus COD
curves of unstitched and stitched composites with similar fiber orientation [108].
Tan et al. [27] suggested that the stitch fracture process in the stitched carbon
fiber composites follows the steps shown schematically in Figure 2.19.
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Figure 2.19. Stitch fracture process: (a) Initial stitch; (b) Interfacial debonding; (c) Slack
absorption; (d) Stitch fracture and (e) Frictional pull-out [27].
Literature has also shown that, apart from stitch density which is a key factor in
delamination suppression, the Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of
stitched laminates is influenced by other factors like stitch fiber type and
Chapter 2 41
thickness, stitch distribution, in-plane fiber architecture, fiber orientation
[27,103,108,115,117]. For example, Wood et al. [117] conducted an
experimental study on interlaminar fracture toughness of Vectran stitched
CFRP laminates and revealed that there exist significant variations in the
interlaminar fracture toughness of stitched specimens with identical stitch
densities but different stitch distributions. Similar results have been also
reported by many authors [22,26,28,33,115,118].
2.5.1.2. In-plane mechanical properties
The effect of stitching on the in-plane properties of the composites is
unavoidable. Several investigations studied the tensile, compressive, flexure,
interlaminar shear and fatigue properties of stitched composites. In some cases,
they contradict each other’s results [23,24,26,32,105,106,114,116,119–124].
The majority of these studies indicate a reduction in the tension, compression
and flexural properties of the stitched laminates in comparison with their
equivalent unstitched counterparts [106,120,123]. However, there are some
studies that exhibit no change or a modest improvement to their mechanical
properties [32,105].
For example, Kang et al. [105] compared the tensile modulus and strength of
two stitched composites under identical conditions. Their results showed an
apparent contradiction, as illustrated in Figure 2.20. The increase in stitch
density results a continuous reduction in the tensile strength and modulus of the
S2 glass/polyester, whereas the Kevlar/PVB-Phenol shows an erratic increase
in the modulus with the same stitch density, while the strength remains almost
unchanged. Similar contradictions were also observed for the flexure and
compression properties of the stitched composites.
(a) (b)
Figure 2.20. Effect of increasing stitch density on the tensile strength and modulus of chain
stitched (a) S2 glass/polyester and (b) Kevlar/PVB-Phenol composites [105].
Mouritz et al. [32] conducted a comparison study on the substantial published
data for stitched in order to quantify the advantages and disadvantages of
through-the-thickness reinforcement for in-plane mechanical properties of
composites. Figure 2.21a-d show the effect of stitch density on the different
mechanical properties of various conventional stitched composites. Comparing
the results showed that stitching could either lead to improvement or reduction
in the tension, compression, flexural and interlaminar shear properties, usually
by less than 20%.
The reduction in the tensile strength of stitched composites is attributable to
geometrical stitch-induced defects such as waviness and crimping of in-plane
fibers, and fiber breakage during the stitching process [25,32]. These
mechanisms were also suggested for the decrease in the other mechanical
properties (i.e. compression and flexural) of the stitched composites. While, no

Chapter 2 43
certain mechanism has ever been directly observed for the increase in the tensile
strength. In the absence of a decisive inference, a plausible general mechanism
for the increase in the in-plane properties of stitched composites is an increase
in the in-plane fiber volume fraction due to compaction of the stitched preforms
by the tension in the stitch fibers during processing.
Mouritz et al. [25] suggest that the increase in the in-plane fiber volume fraction
is almost the main reason for the increase in the elastic modulus of stitched
composites compared to the equivalent 2D laminate. Moreover, the ability of
stitching to suppress delamination propagation is another plausible mechanism
for the improvement in the properties like the flexural strength of the stitched
composites.
From reviewing the published data on the stitched composites, it can be said
that predicting the effects of stitching on the tensile properties is not
straightforward and it is influenced by many parameters other than stitching
density. Fiber preform architecture, the thickness of the laminate, stitch
distribution, stitch thread diameter, stitch type and matrix type are some of the
most important influencing parameters on the performance of stitching in terms
of tensile properties of stitched composites [106,109,125–127].

(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 2.21. Effect of z-binder content (stitch density) on the mechanical properties of various
synthetic fiber composites; (a) normalized tensile strength, (b) normalized tensile modulus, (c)
normalized flexural strength, (d) normalized flexural modulus (The normalized properties,
defined as the ratio of properties of stitched composites to that of the equivalent unstitched
laminate) [32].
Unlike the synthetic fiber reinforced composites, the influence of stitching on
the properties of natural fiber composites is not as frequently reported. Rong et
al. [35] carried out an investigation on the factors that influence in-plane
mechanical responses and Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of
unidirectional sisal/epoxy laminates stitched by Nylon and Kevlar threads. It
was found that tensile and flexural properties were not significantly affected by
stitching, while the delamination resistance was improved via expanding the
Chapter 2 45
fiber bridging zone. To our knowledge, this is the only work which has done
experimentally on the effect of stitching on the natural fiber composite.
2.5.2. Effect of stitching on impact behavior of composites
In general, an important failure mode in composite laminates subjected to
transverse loading is the interlaminar failure or delamination. Stitching as
known to be a very convenient and cost-effect method in the suppression of
delamination propagation. In this regards, the impact performance of stitched
synthetic fiber composites has been investigated by many authors
[26,31,82,106,128–134].
Mouritz et al. [135] conducted an experimental study to compare the damage
resistance of the unstitched and stitched glass fiber laminates using Kevlar yarn
under various impact energies. Delamination area, residual flexural and shear
strength were measured under condition of increasing energy and number of
repeated impact tests to evaluate the damage. They observed that although the
Mode I interlaminar GIC was improved by stitching, the interlaminar shear
strength of stitched laminates decreased owing to stitch-induced damages in the
homogeneous resin-rich region between fiber plies. A slightly larger
delaminated area, therefore, was observed for stitched laminates under both
single and repeated impacts. In contrast to these results, a significant reduction
(up to 40%) in the delamination area was reported for impact on Kevlar-stitched
carbon/epoxy composites by [134].
Their results showed that the compressive strength and modulus decreased by
stitching, nevertheless, the compression properties after impact slightly

enhanced for the stitched laminates. These improvements are only observed for
the impact energy lower than 35J, and above this value, the effects of stitching
were negligible.
Tan et al. [14,26,129,132] conducted a comprehensive study on the effect of
stitching on the performance of the carbon fiber composites subjected to impact
loading. Based on an extensive series of experiments using specimens of
different laminate thicknesses, stitch densities and a range of impact energy
levels, it was concluded that out of three main stages of damage (i.e. damage
initiation, damage propagation and final damage failure), stitches only reduce
the damage initiation threshold. This is due to the presence of weak resin-rich
regions and stress concentration around stitch threads which act as crack
initiation sites. They observed that matrix cracks induced by stitches were
joined between stitch loops, resulting in an easier formation of the crack,
particularly in densely stitched composites. However, during damage
propagation, stitching plays a significant role in suppression of impact-induced
delamination by effectively bridging interlaminar cracks and arresting crack
growth. Therefore, stitched laminates had very smaller delamination region in
comparison with the unstitched counterparts, resulting in higher CAI failure
load and displacement (damage tolerance) of the stitched laminates. Moreover,
it was found that the final failure load improved with increasing density of
stitching, while the failure mechanism changed from delamination for
unstitched laminates to in-plane fiber breakage and matrix crushing for densely
stitched laminates.
Chapter 2 47
The use of flax fibers through hybridization with synthetic composites to
improve energy absorption properties has been the subject of some studies
[36,136–138].
Ghafari-Namini et al. [136] investigated the effects of flax yarn stitching on the
energy absorption and crashworthy behavior of hybrid composite
(Glass/Carbon) box structures. The result of DCB test of stitched and unstitched
composite having a similar lay-up showed that flax yarn stitching improved the
interlaminar fracture toughness of the composite. It was observed that the
lamina bending crushing fracture mechanism of unstitched composite box
changed to brittle fracture mode during crushing process. They concluded that
the improvement of the crush force efficiency and energy absorption
performance of the crush box depends on the location of stitched area in the box.
In another study, the performance of flax yarn stitched single lap joint of
(carbon/glass) hybrid composite beam under impact loading was investigated
[36]. It was found that composite beam joints with flax yarn stitches exhibited
higher impact resistance compared to adhesive bonded joints through modifying
and retarding the failure mode.
2.6. Numerical analysis of stitched and woven composites

Numerical simulation can provide a better understanding of the behavior of
material where it is difficult or impossible to obtain it experimentally. The
numerical simulation can also be used to conduct virtual testing for different
characteristics of the material in a shorter time and with less expenses.

In recent decades, the numerical tools to mirror the complex failure mechanisms
of the advanced fibrous composites has achieved tremendous success due to
high demand for their use as primary structural material in many applications.
One of the most powerful numerical methods for the structural analysis of
advanced composites is the finite element (FE) method, which enables to
capture the damage initiation and propagation mechanisms of synthetic fiber
composites using different failure theories. Some of these theories, despite
many differences in the micro-structure and properties, may be used to predict
the behavior of composite structures made of aligned discontinuous natural
fibers.
The following sections present a literature review focusing on the prediction of
interlaminar fracture toughness of stitched composites through DCB test
simulation as well as failure analysis of woven composites.
2.6.1. Numerical modeling for natural fiber composites
Numerical models to predict the mechanical properties of natural fiber
composites not only provide a better understanding of their behavior, but also
can help to extend their use to engineering applications. Recently, a few
research works have been dedicated to developing numerical models to predict
the mechanical behavior of natural fibers and their composites. These models
mainly focused on microscale modeling of natural fiber composites.
Modniks et al. [139] used the orientation averaging method to predict the tensile
stress–strain behavior of short fiber flax/polypropylene composites by means of
FEM simulation of a unit cell (Figure 2.22a). In another study, Sliseris et al.
Chapter 2 49
[140] developed a microscale model to simulate the mechanical properties of
short fiber-reinforced and woven fabric flax/epoxy composites (Figure 2.22b).
Their micromechanical model was based on the random generation of short
fibers and their bundles as well as fiber defects within a unit cell to study by
FEM the effect of the orientation of short fibers and their defects (e.g. kink band)
on the tensile properties of the composite.
Mattrand et al. [141] used a numerical approach to generate randomly the cross-
section geometry of flax fibers inside the composite, which can contribute to the
micromechanical modeling of natural fiber composites.
Beakou et al. [142] numerically studied the tensile properties of a flax fiber
bundle, taking into account the fiber discontinuity and the cohesive interface
between elementary fibers within the fiber bundle.
(a) (b)
Figure 2.22. (a) Schematic of the unit cell used in [139]; (b) Microstructures of short flax
fibers in matrix with different orientation coefficient [140].
These models, which are based on the micro-scale level modeling of the fiber
configuration within composites, are helpful in understanding the effect of

various intrinsic characteristics of natural fibers on the mechanical and fracture
properties of their composites. However, the implementation of these models
on macro-scale is computationally very expensive.
In addition to the micromechanical models which are based on the
reproducibility of a unit cell with FEM, a few constitutive models have
developed to consider the viscoelastic and viscoplastic behavior of natural fiber
composites [143,144]. Rubio-López et al. [144] proposed a constitutive model
to predict the viscoplastic behavior of PLA based composites reinforced with
three different woven fibers (flax, jute, and cotton). They showed that the
proposed model was able to predict successfully the behavior of bio-composites
loaded at different strain rates.
2.6.2. Predicting interlaminar fracture toughness of stitched
composites
It has been well known that stitching is an effective way to suppress
delamination growth in laminated composites. Besides the experimental
investigations presented in Section 2.5, a considerable amount of numerical
studies has been devoted to modeling the interlaminar failure of the stitched
synthetic composite laminates [22,23,27,33,34,110,117,145–147].
Mai et al. [110] proposed two micro-mechanics based models to study the
effects of stitching on delamination growth of a laminate in double cantilever
beam (DCB) specimen. In their first model, it was assumed that the stitches are
not interconnected at laminate surfaces since in most cases the top and the
Chapter 2 51
bottom surfaces of the stitched laminates are ground off to remove surface
waviness created by the stitch loops. Hence, each stitch was considered as an
independent through-thickness reinforcement, as shown in Figure 2.23a and b.
In the second model, the effect of interconnected stitches which had been
ignored in the first model was taken into account (Figure 2.23c). They assumed
that the matrix-stitch thread bond is completely frictional and constant. In
addition, the elastic bond strength and the effect of fiber abrasion or matrix
crumbling during stitch thread stretching and pull-out were neglected. It was
also assumed that the breakage of the stitch is brittle and its properties are
uniform over the length, and therefore stitches fracture at the delamination face
where the bridging force is maximum. The results of their analysis provided a
good understanding of the influence of stitch thread size on the delamination
resistance.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 2.23. Illustration of an embedded stitch fiber (a) during elastic stretching and (b) after
slippage of embedded end without interconnected stitched effect; (c) interconnected stitched
fiber during elastic stretching [110].
An analytical model using a continuous cohesive spring with linear elastic
behavior and assuming brittle fracture was presented by Sankar et al. [148] to
simulate crack propagation in stitched composites. The authors concluded that
linear modeling is not adequate to predict the interlaminar fracture toughness of
the laminates stitched by a strong thread (i.e. Kevlar), where the inelastic
behavior of the stitching thread plays a significant role in increasing the
toughness.
Chen et al. [149] investigated the use of 2D solid elements and 3D shell
elements to model the parent laminate and bar elements to model the stitches to
determine the effective Mode I and Mode II fracture toughness of the stitched
composites based on the J-integral method. Their study showed that 3D model
is necessary to determine the accurate stress field as well as the stitch
interactions with the parent laminate.
Sun et al. [33] used a 2-node nonlinear rod element with the micromechanical
stitching models introduced in [110], and studied the effect of stitch distribution
on improving the delamination resistance by means of the virtual crack closure
technique (VCCT). In this model, the stitch elements were located between 2
sub-laminates in which their initial length was zero (before any load was carried
by the stitches) and it was assumed that only tension loads could be carried by
the stitch elements.
A comprehensive experimental and numerical study on the effect of stitch
distribution has been conducted by Wood et al. [117]. They employed the 2-
node beam element used by Sun [33] and the VCCT to simulate the DCB test
of the stitched composite. Their studies revealed that, regardless of stitch density,
the stitch distribution has a significant effect on the Mode I critical strain energy
release rate (G IC).

Chapter 2 53
Iwahori et al. [23] and Tan et al. [27] developed a 2-D finite element model to
simulate the delamination propagation of stitched CFRP for the DCB test by
using a 3-node rod element to represent a stitch thread. The authors also
developed a novel test method, named as interlaminar tension test, to understand
the progressive damage behavior of a single stitch thread – i.e. interfacial
debonding, slack absorption, stitch fracture, and frictional pull-out – as it is
loaded in tension (Figure 2.24). The load–displacement curve from the
interlaminar tension test was simplified and used in defining the material
modeling of the stitch element in the FEM simulation (Figure 2.25). The model
was able to provide a good prediction of the experimental load-displacement
curves and Mode I critical strain energy release rates, GIC.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 2.24. (a) Interlaminar tension test specimen proposed by [27]; (b) fractured stitch after
interlaminar tension test; (c) fractured stitches at the surface of the test specimen after DCB
test [23].
Figure 2.25. Modeling of z-fiber mechanical properties [23].
Generally, it is observed that the interlaminar failure of long fiber reinforced
composites happens in the presence of in-plane fiber bridging which leads to an
R-curve development in the fracture energy response [150–154]. The bridging
traction of in-plane fibers across the delamination plane of the stitched laminates
using high strength stitch threads is negligible compared to the bridging traction
of the out-of-plane stitch fibers. However, the latter has to be taken into
consideration when preform stitching is conducted using lower strength
materials, like natural fibers. For modeling delamination in the presence of fiber
bridging, several authors have shown that the traction-separation law (cohesive
law) with non-linear softening can be used to model the R-curve response as
well as the enlarged process zone associated with crack bridging [150–153,155].
Airoldi et al. [151] proposed a semi-analytical approach to extract the
parameters of the cohesive law with bilinear softening (trilinear cohesive law)
– which is being obtained from the superposition of two bilinear cohesive laws
– from the experimental R-curves in order to model the delamination crack
propagation in the presence of fiber bridging. It was shown through a virtual

Chapter 2 55
DCB test, that the model was able to reproduce well the force-displacement as
well as the R-curve response.
2.6.3. Failure analysis of woven composites under impact loads
As of today, a variety of models have been proposed to successfully predict
various effective properties of woven composites using either simplified
macroscale models [156–161] or accurate models based on multiscale
approaches [162–166]. The heterogeneity of woven composites is generally
defined at three length scales based on their geometrical characteristics as
microscale (fiber), mesoscale (tow), and macroscale (laminate) [166]. The
multiscale modeling of woven composites is able to capture the effects of the
interlacing and undulation of the fiber tows at the mesoscale, the diffused
fracturing processes at the microscale within the fiber tows as well as depict the
effective behavior of composite plies at macroscale. This is possible by virtue
of homogenization theory which is applied between the different length scales.
In the multiscale models, the heterogeneous material is substituted by an
equivalent homogenous medium in the macroscale model using a proper
homogenization approach. To capture the micro and meso-mechanisms of
damage, stress states are computed at micro and mesoscale models. The stress
amplification factors, which are determined from the stress concentrations
analysis at meso and microscale FE models with the detailed woven architecture
of fiber tows, are used to transfer the stress states between different length scales.
This approach has been studied by numerous authors with the aim of integrating
different modeling tools within a single framework to depict the mechanical
behavior of woven composites. For instance, Lomov et al. [166] proposed a

comprehensive algorithm of mesomechanical failure analysis including a
preprocessing method for modeling of woven geometry. A multiscale approach
proposed by Ernst et al. [167] in which micro and mesoscale FE models were
used to derive the nonlinear behavior and the mechanical properties of the
woven laminate (the larger entity). Mao et al. [165] proposed a multiscale
modeling approach starting from the micromechanics to predict mechanical
behavior until fracture of woven composites.
Although, due to this heterogeneous structure, the micro and mesoscale
modeling are necessary to capture the accurate stress-strain behavior and
damage mechanisms of woven composites, they can hardly be used for analysis
of macroscale structures due to high computational cost. Thus, even for static
loading, these models are seldom used for larger length scale of the woven
composites.
In general, the FE modeling of impact on woven laminates is implemented at
macroscale using energy based damageable material laws such as stiffness
degradation, cohesive law, etc [157–160]. The woven fabric lamina in these
models are represented using homogenized brick or shell elements. These
models are able to capture the global elastic-plastic behavior as well as damage
on the plies of the woven composites in impact loading with good accuracy and
less computational time. For example, Iannucci [160] proposed a numerical
modeling methodology based on continuum damage mechanics to model non-
linear material behavior and progressive failure of woven carbon fiber
composites under impact. A material model for implementation into FE
simulation based on in-plane continuum damage mechanics for woven fabric

Chapter 2 57
composites was proposed by Johnson [158]. This model is a generalization of
the methods developed for UD ply composites and contains in-plane elastic
damage in fiber direction, with a non-linear elastic-plastic model for the shear
response, in which the fiber and shear damage modes are assumed to be
decoupled. The plasticity and shear damage parameters in this model are
determined experimentally. This approach is simple but effective that can model
a wide range of impact problems on woven composites when tearing and
penetration are major failure mechanism.
2.7. Summary
In the past decade, the use of natural fibers from plants as reinforcement in
polymer composites have become more popular thanks to their promising
properties such as high specific stiffness, good acoustic and vibration damping,
and eco-friendly characteristics. Amongst the commonly studied natural fibers,
flax fiber is recognized as one of the high-performance fibers in terms of
strength and stiffness per density, which makes it suitable for a number of
structural applications. In this regards, proper numerical models to predict the
mechanical properties of flax fiber composites can provide a better
understanding of their behavior and failure under different loading conditions.
The availability of these models can help to extend their use to engineering
applications.
To utilize the maximum load carrying capacity of the natural fibers, they must
be used in the form of continuous unidirectional (UD) or woven textile (with

optimally twisted yarns) in the composite laminates. However, one of the most
concerned failure modes of laminated composites is interlaminar failure
(namely delamination) since there is no reinforcement in the thickness direction.
Through-the-thickness stitching as a technique able to improve the performance
of composites has been around for some time. Stitching of the fiber preforms
has been acknowledged as a convenient and cost-effective technique for
improving the interlaminar properties, impact resistance and damage tolerance.
However, it is found that stitching may cause degradation in some mechanical
properties of composites such as tensile strength. As of today, a considerable
amount of experimental and numerical studies have been devoted to
investigating the influence of stitching on mechanical properties and impact
behavior of synthetic composite laminates. However, the effect of stitching on
the properties of natural fiber composites has been not comprehensively studied.
Chapter 3 59
Chapter 3
Experimental Methodology
3.1. Introduction
This chapter will provide an overview of the experiments and the numerical
methods used. The material, composite fabrication process, specimen
preparation and experiments, and the numerical modeling strategy for DCB
tests of the stitched composite are described in detail. Firstly, in-plane fiber
reinforcements, stitching materials and the thermoset resin system used are
introduced. Secondly, the detail of stitching procedure of fiber preforms,
stitching parameters and stitch areal fraction definition, and fabrication of
composites will be explained. Thirdly, the methodology of experiments and
measurements carried out in this study are described. Finally, the simulation
strategy of DCB test of the stitched flax fiber composite is presented. These are
inextricably linked, where the numerical modeling are developed based on the
experimental observations. It should be noted, however, that the detailed
description of the experimental results has been discussed in later chapters.

60 Experimental Methodology
3.2. Material
3.2.1. In-plane flax fiber reinforcements
In this study, flax fibers were used to reinforce the composites. Among the
commercial available long flax fibers for higher performance biocomposite
applications, Woven 4×4 hopsack flax fabric with an area density of 500g/m²
supplied by Composite Evolution (UK) [168] and 110g/m² unidirectional flax
fibers with a high degree of fiber alignment supplied by LINEO (Belgium) [169]
were employed as in-plane reinforcements, as shown in Figure 3.1. The woven
fabric uses a unique twistless yarn to provide optimum performance of the
natural fiber. For benchmarking purposes, unidirectional E-glass fibers of
498g/m² from Formax (UK) was also used to make the synthetic fiber composite.
(a) (b)
Figure 3.1. (a) Biotex flax 4x4 hopsack fabric; (b) FlaxTape©110 unidirectional fiber.
3.2.2. Stitch fibers
Two types of natural fiber rovings were used to stitch preforms (Figure 3.2): a
Tex 250 twistless flax yarn supplied by Composite Evolution (UK) [168], and
alternatively, Tex 30 twisted cotton thread produced by Gütermann (Greece)
[170]. The flax stitch yarn, which is the same yarn used to produce the woven
Chapter 3 61
hopsack flax fabric, is a bundle of technical fibers (dry roving) that are bound
by thin polyester thread. The cotton thread is dry spun, low cost, readily
available and was chosen as a stitch fiber to provide a lower bound reference
from the range of natural fibers available in the market.
(a) (b)
Figure 3.2. (a) Biotex 250tex flax yarn; (b) Natural cotton C Ne 50 thread.
3.2.3. Thermoset matrix
A resin-infusion grade thermo-set resin and hardener Epolam 5015 supplied by
Axson (France), with a mixed viscosity of 210 mPa.s (at 25℃) was used as the
polymer matrix. This resin is a low-viscosity system designed for liquid
composite molding and appropriate for wood and natural fibers [171]. The mix
ratio by weight was 10:3. The mixed resin must be cured at least 2 hrs at 50℃
or 24 hrs at room temperature to be demolded, and must be postcured (at least
16 hrs at 80℃) to obtain the optimal mechanical properties.

3.3. Preform stitching

A range of unstitched and stitched laminates with various fiber architecture and
stitch densities were prepared in order to study the effects of stitch material and
density on the static and impact behavior of the flax fiber composite laminates.
To study the stitch fiber areal fraction effect, the stitching of woven flax
preforms was carried out at four different densities using Tex 250 flax yarn and
Tex 30 cotton thread.
3.3.1. Cotton thread stitching
The cotton thread stitching process was conducted using a commercial sewing
machine and universal needle. This method is appropriate for thin and flexible
un/twisted threads and is able to stitch laminates with medium thickness (up to
4-5mm). Figure 3.3 shows the stitching process using a sewing machine and
cross-sectional micrograph of the woven flax composite laminates stitched by
cotton thread.
(a) (b)
Cotton thread stitch
Figure 3.3. (a) Stitching using sewing machine; (b) Cross-section of the cotton-thread stitched
woven flax/epoxy composite.
Chapter 3 63
3.3.2. Flax yarn stitching
Similar to carbon fiber stitch thread, the commercial sewing machine with
universal needle mechanism (used for cotton thread stitching) was not able to
stitch using the twistless flax yarn due to friability and lower flexibility of the
yarn. Weinberg et al. [111,112] invented a sewing machine needle and a sewing
mechanism which is useful for stitching and joining fabrics with a brittle thread.
The invented open eye needle and the special sewing machine for stitching
brittle thread are diagrammatically depicted in Figure 2.16.
For preparing a few preforms to conduct mechanical tests, the flax yarn stitching
was performed manually by imitating this stitching process method. Figure 3.4
shows cross-sectional micrograph of the woven flax composite laminates
stitched by flax yarn.
Flax yarn stitch
Figure 3.4. Cross-section of the flax-yarn stitched woven flax/epoxy composite.
To enable the comparison between various stitch densities, the following
dimensionless formula was used to define stitch fiber areal fraction:

2𝐴𝑠 2𝐴𝑠
Stitch Areal Fraction = | + |
𝑆𝐿 × 𝑆𝑅 Stitching in X direction 𝑆𝐿 × 𝑆𝑅 Stitching in Y direction
(3.1)
where 𝐴𝑠 is the average cross-section area of the stitch (values in Table 4.1),
and 𝑆𝑅 and 𝑆𝐿 are the stitch row spacing and stitch length, respectively
(Figure 3.5b-c). The modified lock stitch process was chosen to perform in order
to minimize the defects inside the laminate by placing the loops between the
bobbin and needle yarn at the outer surface of the laminate [27]. A schematic of
the modified lock stitched preform and stitch parameters are presented in
Figure 3.5. The cross-sectional micrographs of the woven flax composite
laminates stitched by flax yarn and cotton thread (as given in Figure 3.3b and
Figure 3.4b) showed good consistency and well impregnated stitched fibers.
(a)
Stitch lines
Z (Stitch )
Y (Weft ) X (Warp )
Chapter 3 65
(b)
Stitch length
(SL)
Needle thread
Weft fibers
Z (Stitch)
Warp fibers
X (Warp )
Bobbin thread
SL
SL
• • • •
Stitch row spacing
(SR) • • • • SR
• • • •
• • • •
Y (Weft )
0.5 As
X (Warp ) Stitch direction
Figure 3.5. (a) Schematic view of a stitched preform of woven flax fiber; (b) Definition of
stitch parameters shown from side and top view.
In addition to the woven laminates, a flax yarn stitched UD flax laminate at the
same stitch areal fraction (0.0138) as a stitched woven flax laminate was also
prepared to observe the effect arising from the choice of preform fiber
architecture. Table 3.1 shows the details of laminates manufactured for this
study.
It is worth mentioning, in preparing the preforms for the DCB test specimens,
a region was left unstitched to accommodate a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
film insert that acts as a crack starter. The entire preform was stitched for the
tensile test specimens.

Table 3.1. Summary of the composite lay-up and stitch parameters of the manufactured
composite laminates.
Stitch Stitch row Stitch Areal

Lamina Laminate Stitch Stitch
Layup length spacing Fraction
preform nomenclature material direction
(mm) (mm) x10-2
PW0 [0]4 Unstitched - 0 0 0
PWC1 [0]4 Cotton X 3 8 0.46
PWC2 [0]4 Cotton X 3 4 0.92
PWC3 [0]4 Cotton X,Y* 3 6 1.22

Flax
4×4Plain
PWC4 [0]4 Cotton X,Y* 3 4 1.83
Weave
(500 g/m2)
PWF1 [0]4 Flax X 12 8 0.69
PWF2 [0]4 Flax X 8 8 1.03
PWF3 [0]4 Flax X 12 4 1.38
PWF4 [0]4 Flax X 4 8 2.06
[0]16 - 0 0 0
Flax UD
UD0 Unstitched
(110 g/m2)
[0/90]4s - 0 0 0
UDF [0]16 Flax X 12 4 1.38
Glass UD
UD glass [0]10 Unstitched - 0 0 0
(498 g/m2)
* Stitching conducted at both directions to achieve a similar stitch areal fraction due to smaller As of cotton
thread.
3.4. Composite manufacturing

The composite panels were made by the Vacuum Assisted Resin Infusion
(VARI) technique, as shown in Figure 3.6. All fiber preforms were dried at 80℃
for 3 hours in a vacuum oven to reduce fiber moisture content prior to the
infusion set up. The preforms were then placed on an aluminum plate, layered
on with peel ply and breather, and vacuum bagged for 2 hours at room
Chapter 3 67
temperature prior to infusion. The epoxy mixture was also vacuum degassed for
30 min at room temperature.
After resin infusion, the composite was cured at 25 ℃ for 24 hours, de-molded,
then post cured in a convection oven at 80℃ for 16 hours. Specimens were cut
from the panel using water-jet, and dried immediately at 60℃ for at least 24
hours to remove any surface moisture absorbed.
Vacuum Hose
Resin Feed
Figure 3.6. The vacuum assistant resin infusion setup used for manufacturing composite
laminates.
From the optical and scanning electron microscopic (SEM) images in Figure 3.7,
it was observed that this method of manufacturing produced well infused
technical fibers where almost all the single fibers are found to be wetted by the
matrix.
(a) Flax
elementary fibres
Lumen
Flax
technical fibre
Matrix
(b)
Resin infused
technical fibre
Lumen
(c) Resin impregnation of

technical flax fibre
Figure 3.7. (a) and (b) Optical micrograph of the cross-section of the flax fiber composite; (c)
SEM image of a fractured resin-impregnated flax fiber in the composite.
Chapter 3 69
3.5. Fiber volume fraction measurement

The fiber volume fraction ( 𝑉𝑓 ) of the composites were determined from
measured values of their weight to 0.001g and density via Eq.(3.2) in which the
void content has been neglected. Gas pycnometer was used to measure the
average densities of pure cured matrix (𝜌𝑚 ), dry fiber (𝜌𝑓 ) and the composite
(𝜌𝑐 ). An average 𝑉𝑓 of 31±2% was obtained for the woven fiber composite and
40±2% for the unidirectional fiber composites. The stitch fibers were
considered in the determination of the 𝑉𝑓 , and their contribution was not more
than 9% of the 𝑉𝑓 for the case with highest stitch areal fraction (PWF4).
𝜌𝑐 = 𝑉𝑓 𝜌𝑓 + (1 − 𝑉𝑓 )𝜌𝑚
(3.2)
3.6. Composite tensile testing

The tensile properties of the composite laminates in the X (warp) direction were
evaluated by tensile test according to ASTM D3039. The tests were conducted
on a Shimadzu universal testing machine equipped with a load cell of 25 kN at
room temperature, as shown in Figure 3.8. The tensile tests were carried out at
a cross-head displacement rate of 2 mm/min, and strain gauges were used to
record the deformation in the both longitudinal and transverse directions. The
tensile stiffness was obtained from the slope of stress-strain curve between 0.1%
-0.3% strain. The test specimens with a dimension of 250mm by 25mm were
cut from unstitched and stitched composite panels with an average thickness of
4mm. A minimum of 5 specimens were tested for each sample to obtain a
reliable standard deviation.

Back surface
Figure 3.8. Tensile test of the woven flax fiber composite.
3.7. Strength evaluation of the stitch fibers

The stitch cotton thread and flax yarn, as a through-the-thickness reinforcement
of the composite, will experience tensile loading during the Mode I opening test.
It was, therefore, necessary to evaluate the tensile properties of the stitch fibers
before and after impregnated with resin. This information is needed to
understand the stress-strain contribution of the stitch reinforcements when
bridging a crack. The impregnated test specimens were prepared by infusing 25
cm long dry cotton thread and flax yarns with the same epoxy resin, Epolam
5015, via the VARI technique. The cured, impregnated fibers were tested at a
gauge length of 10 mm and the cross-head speed of 1 mm/min, using an Instron
5500 micro tester machine with a 1 KN load cell. The tensile tests were
conducted on ten specimens to assess the variation of the tensile properties of

Chapter 3 71
the stitch fibers. The schematic of specimen mounting tab and the tensile test
set up for stitch fiber are shown in Figure 3.9.
(a) (b)
Resin impregnated
Griping area
flax yarn
Paper frame
Cutting line
after clamping
Adhesive
Figure 3.9. (a) Schematic view of the mounting tab and (b) the tensile test of stitch fiber
specimen.
The fracture energy of the impregnated stitch materials was estimated from the
load-displacement curve of the tensile test [122]. The absorbed energy 𝐸 is
calculated by integrating the area under the load-displacement curve using
Eq.(3.3)
∞
𝐸 = ∫ 𝐹(𝛿)𝑑𝛿
0
(3.3)
where 𝐹(𝛿) is the tensile force as a function of displacement δ.
3.8. Flexural testing

The flexural properties of the composite laminates in the X (warp) direction
were measured by three-point bending tests according to ASTM D790 [172].
Specimens of 150mm by 20mm by 4 mm were tested with a span length of

120mm using a Shimadzu universal testing machine and a load cell of 25 kN at
a loading rate of 5mm/min. In order to obtain a reliable standard deviation, a
minimum of 5 specimens were tested for each sample. The maximum flexural
stress sustained by the test specimen during bending was reported as flexural
strength. The flexural modulus (i.e. modulus of elasticity in bending [172]) was
calculated based on the slope of the secant line to the flexural stress-strain curve
between 0.3% -0.5% strain.
Figure 3.10. Three-point bending test of the woven flax fiber composite.
3.9. Composite double cantilever beam (DCB) testing

The Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness was determined from the DCB test
in accordance with ASTM D5528-01 [173]. The tests were conducted on an
Instron 4505 universal testing machine equipped with a 1 kN load cell, at the
test rate of 1 mm/min. In order to prevent large deformation and failure of the
specimen arms, unidirectional CFRP tabs with an average thickness of 2.3 mm
were bonded to both sides of the woven flax fiber DCB test specimens using the
Scotch-Weld™ DP-420 Epoxy adhesive. For UD flax fiber composite
specimens, three plies of the UD glass fiber were added to both faces of flax
Chapter 3 73
fiber preform prior to resin infusion process. The final thickness of the glass
fiber backings (after curing) was measured to be 1 mm.
The aluminum load blocks were bonded to both arms of the specimens using
the same adhesive. All bonding surfaces were lightly polished, sand blasted and
finally wiped with acetone to remove contamination. The schematic of CFRP
tabbed DCB test specimen with the nominal dimensions is illustrated in
Figure 3.11.
Figure 3.11. Schematic of tabbed double cantilever beam (DCB) test specimen.
To increase contrast for visual crack length determination, a thin layer of white
correction fluid was painted onto the side of the specimen, and marked with an
ultra-fine point marker at 1 mm intervals, taking reference from the load line.
The initial loading-unloading cycle was performed to propagate the crack by 3
to 5 mm from the pre-delamination insert so as to create a naturally sharp crack
tip. During the test, the crack propagation was monitored visually using a
traveling microscope and the crack length correlating to the load and
displacement values was recorded for every 1 mm of crack length increment. A
second loading cycle was then performed for the crack propagation of about 60
mm. After testing, the specimens were fully fractured to assess the actual
position of the PTFE insert and to verify propagated crack length. The DCB test
setup and specimen are shown in Figure 3.12.
Travelling microscope
Figure 3.12. DCB test setup and mounted specimen.
The Mode I strain energy release rate, GI, was calculated from the Modified
Beam Theory (MBT) [173],
3𝑃𝛿
𝐺𝐼 =
2𝑏(𝑎 + |∆|)
(3.4)
where 𝑃 is the opening load, 𝛿 is the crack opening displacement at load point,
𝑏 is the specimen width, 𝑎 is the crack length, and ∆ is the intercept of the plot
of the cube root of the specimen compliance against the crack length.
Before testing, the specimens were placed in the oven for 24 hrs at 60℃ to dry
the moisture induced during the cutting process. All the tests were conducted at
Chapter 3 75
temperature of 23-25℃ and a relative humidity of 65%. The specimens were
exposed to test condition at least 48 hrs prior to testing.
3.10. Low-velocity impact testing

Drop-weight impact test was performed to investigate the behavior of the
unstitched and stitched woven flax/epoxy composites as well as cross-ply
flax/epoxy composites under low-velocity impact loads in accordance to ASTM
standard D7136 [81]. Three specimens were tested for each type of sample, at
each energy level. A homemade drop-weight impact test apparatus with a
double column guide dropping weight mechanism and a hemispherical head
steel impactor of 9.99 kg weight was used. The impactor was equipped with a
Kistler 9333A force sensor and had a striker head diameter of 20 mm.
The specimens were placed in the impact support fixture with a cut-out
rectangular hole of 75 mm by 125 mm and clamped using rubber tip toggle
clamps at four points with an identical clamp force, as shown in Figure 3.13. A
rebound brake was used to prevent unintentional multiple impacts on the
specimens. After testing, the residual depth of the depression formed by the
impactor was measured at impact location using depth gauge micrometer.

Force Sensor
Impactor striker Toggle clamps with

rubber tip
Specimen
Figure 3.13. Drop-weight impact test setup with a mounted woven flax specimen.
The impact force-time history was obtained from the impactor force sensor and
recorded every 5×10-3 ms (200kHz) for 50 ms duration to collect enough data
point before and after the impact event. The contact velocity was measured
using high-speed camera with 15000 frames/second. The incident energy of
19.6J and 44.6J was chosen to produce non-perforation but visible damage, and
full perforation impact, for all samples respectively. The drop height (H) was
calculated to generate the desired energies using Eq.(3.5)
𝐻 = 𝐸𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 /𝑀𝑔
(3.5)
where 𝐸𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 is the impact energy, 𝑚 is the mass of impactor and 𝑔 is the
acceleration of gravity (9.81 𝑚/𝑠 2 ). The impactor displacement versus time,

Chapter 3 77
𝛿𝑖𝑚𝑝 (𝑡), during contact was generated using the numerical integration of force-
time history as in Eq.(3.6)
𝑡 𝑡𝑃
𝑖𝑚𝑝 (𝑡)
𝛿𝑖𝑚𝑝 (𝑡) = 𝑉𝑐 𝑡 + 0.5𝑔𝑡 2 − ∫ ∫ 𝑑𝑡𝑑𝑡
0 0 𝑚
(3.6)
where 𝑉𝑐 is contact velocity and 𝑃𝑖𝑚𝑝 (𝑡) is the incident force at time 𝑡. The
displacement obtained from Eq.(3.6), was validated with the data obtained from
the high speed camera. The absorbed impact energy was determined by
calculating the area under the force-displacement curve.
After impact testing, all the specimens were visually checked for any external
damage on both impacted and back surfaces. The damage type as well as the
length of cracks were recorded for all the specimens. A digital camera was used
to capture the scaled images of both surfaces of specimens before and after
impact.
3.11. Scanning Electron Microscopy

The fracture surface/morphology of the composites was analyzed by Scanning
Electron Microscopy (SEM). Using this technique, it is possible to inspect the
morphology of the flax fibers and their composites and identify the fracture
mechanisms which have a major contribution in energy dissipation.
The SEM samples were cut from different parts of the fracture surfaces of the
composites and then fixed by a double-side carbon tape to a specimen holder.
Prior to SEM imaging, an ultra-thin coating of gold (Au) was applied onto the
samples using sputter deposition technique for 100-120 sec at a vacuum

pressure of 10 mbar and sputtering current of 15 mA in order to create a
conductive layer of metal to prevent charging during SEM. The SEM imaging
was performed using a Zeiss EVO extended pressure electron microscope in
secondary electrons mode which scans the sample surface with a high-energy
beam of electrons in a raster scan pattern. The images were taken at accelerating
voltage of 2-5 kV and working distance of 9-12 mm.

Chapter 4 79
Chapter 4
Mechanical and fracture properties of
stitched flax fiber composites
4.1. Introduction
This chapter presents the experimental work conducted to determine the
properties of the stitch fibers, and the mechanical properties of the stitched
composite, to study the impact of employing stitched preforms. These
experimental measurements also serve to provide the data required in the finite
element modeling and validation work presented in the next chapter. First, the
evaluated tensile properties of the stitch materials, before and after resin
impregnation are presented. This is followed by the tensile, flexural and Mode
I interlaminar fracture toughness properties of various stitched woven flax fiber
composite systems. The interesting effects of stitch areal fraction, the stitch
material selected and of the influence of in-plane preform architecture on the
fracture toughness and behavior will be discussed in detail. Finally, the results
are also benchmarked with the UD glass fiber composites to put the strength
and limitations of this natural fiber composite in perspective.

80 Mechanical and fracture properties of stitched flax fiber composites
4.2. Strength of dry and impregnated stitch fibers

The measured tensile properties of the twist-less flax yarn and the cotton thread
both in dry and impregnated form (composite) are shown in Table 4.1. This
information is useful for understanding the strength and fracture energy
contribution of through-the-thickness stitch reinforcements when bridging a
crack since the failure of all the stitches occurs under tension at the delamination
plane. More discussion on this will be made in next sections.
As it can be seen from Table 4.1, the strength and fracture energy of the
impregnated cotton threads are lower than those of the impregnated flax yarn.
Comparing the tensile properties of both stitch fibers before and after
impregnation, the strength and force at break of the impregnated flax yarn show
higher improvement than the impregnated cotton threads, over their dry
versions (Figure 4.1a). This discrepancy between the properties of flax and
cotton stitch fibers can be attributed to the particular form of the dry roving flax
yarn which is a bundle of unidirectional technical fibers bound by a thin thread,
as shown in Figure 4.1b. The length of these technical fibers normally varies
from 30 mm to 100mm. In a dry yarn, tensile load is taken up by the fibers
mainly through mechanical interlock and friction between the fibers, hence the
maximum load capacity of the fibers is not utilized. However, in a well-
impregnated yarn, the load is distributed and transferred among the fibers
through the matrix.

Chapter 4 81
(a)
120
Flax yarn (Dry)
100 Flax yarn (Impregnated)

Cotton thread (Dry)
80 Cotton thread (Impregnated)

Load (N)
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Elongation (%)
(b) (c)
Binding thread
Figure 4.1. (a) Comparison of load-elongation curves of cotton thread and flax yarn before and
after resin impregnation; (b) dry twist-less flax yarn with binding thread; (c) dry twisted cotton
thread.
In the case of cotton thread, there is also an improvement in the strength of the
impregnated thread compared to that of the dry version, but the mechanism is
different from that of flax yarns. The structure of cotton thread is made of spun
and twisted fluffy staple seed fibers with no axially-aligned technical fiber,
which explains the higher elongation of the thread before breaking because the
fibers can be straightened under load, Figure 4.1c. The strength of the dry thread
is high due to high friction between the twisted fibers which leads good load
transfer between the fibers. However, due to the high level of twist, the
permeability of the cotton thread is low and consequently its impregnation is
more difficult [6]. Hence, the improvement in the strength of the cotton thread
after impregnation by resin is not as significant as the untwisted flax yarns.
These results imply that natural fibers have to be used with the lowest level of
twist when they are to be impregnated with polymer resin as reinforcement. This
is unlike the textile applications where a high level of twist is necessary to allow
the dry fibers become usable on textile machines.
4.3. Effects of stitch areal fraction on the in-plane

properties of the woven composite
The effects of through-the-thickness stitch reinforcements on the in-plane
tensile and flexural properties of the stitched composite laminates were
investigated. For each sample at least five specimens were tested, and the
average values as well as the scatter of results (maximum-minimum values)
were presented. The samples comprised of flax yarn and cotton thread stitched
laminates.
Chapter 4
Table 4.1. Tensile properties of cotton thread and flax twist-less yarn.
Before Impregnation After Impregnation

linear density Cross-section area
Material
(Tex) (mm2) Elongation at break Force at break Strength Elongation at break Force at break Strength Fracture energy Vf
(%) (N) (MPa) (%) (N) (MPa) (Nmm) (%)
Flax Yarn 250 0.33 0.02 5 0.4 20 1.4 60 5.6 3.7 0.4 109 12.5 330 42 20.2 3.2 35
Cotton thread 30 0.055 0.01 11 0.5 8 0.4 145 27 10 0.8 13 1.5 230 48 6.5 0.9 45
83
4.3.1. Tensile properties
Figure 4.2a and b illustrate the tensile strength and stiffness versus the stitch
areal fraction of both cotton and flax stitched composites, respectively. The
graphs indicate that the tensile properties, regardless of the types of stitch fibers,
are expected to decrease gradually with increasing density of stitching (stitch
areal fraction). Only the cotton thread stitched composite of lowest stitch areal
fraction (0.0046) showed lower strength than both the unstitched and the next
higher stitch areal fraction (0.0092). This variation is likely to have been
influenced by the manufactured quality – i.e. void content and fiber
misalignment – associated with the individual panels, as the composite panels
of each stitch areal fraction have been processed separately. The detailed tensile
test results are reported in Table B.1 in Appendix B.
(a)
95
90
85
Tensile Strength (MPa)
80
75
70
65
60
55
Flax yarn stitch
50
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Stitch areal fraction

Chapter 4 85
(b)
9
8.5
8
Tensile Stiffness (GPa)
7.5
6.5
5.5 Cotton thread stitch

Flax yarn stitch
5
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Figure 4.2. Effects of various stitch areal fractions of cotton thread and flax yarn on the tensile
properties of woven composite; (a) tensile strength; (b) tensile stiffness.
The results for tensile stiffness showed no change or even a modest
improvement up to stitch areal fractions of 0.01 for both stitch fibers. For
example, the tensile stiffness of the stitched samples PWC2 and PWF2 (with a
similar stitch areal fraction of 0.01) were slightly improved against the minor
reduction (up to 4%) in the strength. A similar trend was also reported for the
stitched woven synthetic fiber laminates in [105], in which the mechanical
properties of the stitched woven composite laminates were improved at an
optimum stitch areal fraction compared to the unstitched one. The plausible
mechanism for the modest improvement in the in-plane stiffness of stitched
composites is the increase in the in-plane fiber volume fraction due to
compaction of the fiber preforms by the tension in the stitch fibers during
processing [32] (see Chapter 2.5.1.2).

It is apparent from Figure 4.2b that the tensile stiffness of the two types of
stitched laminates exhibits similar levels of decline with increasing stitch areal
fractions from 0.01. This is despite the fact that the flax yarn size is six-fold
bigger than cotton thread. In fact, for cotton thread, due to the lower cross-
sectional area and higher stitch punch frequency, the physical displacement of
the in-plane fibers is less per stitch but more numerous sites. Conversely, in flax
yarn stitching, the distortion of in-plane fibers is more per stitch because of its
larger diameter, but fewer in numbers of stitch. The overall effect may be
compensated so that the difference between the two cases becomes less
pronounced.
The results in this study showed that the maximum reduction in tensile
properties for the both types of stitch occurs at the highest density of stitching.
The observed reduction in the tensile strength is not as severe as the results
reported for some of the stitched synthetic fiber composite laminates (see
Figure 2.21) [106,123]. Reviewing the available data on the conventional
stitched composites, the in-plane mechanical properties of stitched composites,
depending on the stitching parameters (i.e. stitch fiber material, dimension and
stitch areal fraction) and the in-plane fiber architecture, are generally degraded
after stitching [21].
Generally, the reduction in the tensile properties of stitched laminates is
attributed to geometrical stitch-induced defects such as crimping and distortion
(or waviness) of in-plane fibers, and in-plane reinforcing fiber breakage during
the stitching process [25,32]. Nevertheless, it was found that the reduction in
the tensile properties of both types of the stitched composites was very similar.
Chapter 4 87
This observation suggested that the in-plane fiber damages of the woven flax
are not very susceptible to the punching frequency of the sewing needle through
the preform as a higher number of cotton stitches per unit area (i.e. more needle
damage) to achieve a similar stitch fiber areal fraction to the flax stitched
laminate.
This behavior of the woven flax preform may be due to the inherent variation
in the length and cell wall thickness of the flax fiber bundles [44] as well as
reasonable slack in the fiber-bundles of this particular 4x4 hopsack fabric weave
which allowed the elementary fibers to move out of the way as the needle
punches through. Hence, placing a stitch thread or yarn through it would have
caused minimal distortion and breakage to this particular weave type of in-plane
fibers.
However, in-plane fiber crimping and distortion are inevitable consequences of
stitching that would have led to the formation of resin rich areas and stress
concentrations around the stitch fibers. In addition, stitching also made the
stacked fiber layers more compact and this inversely affected the resin
permeability through the fiber preform during fabrication. These factors would
have increased the presence of process defects such as voids, porosity, and
matrix micro-cracking in the vicinity of the stitch fibers in the composite
[32,119] with increasing stitch areal fraction and thereby led to the
corresponding decline in the tensile properties.

4.3.2. Flexural properties
The flexural test results of unstitched and stitched woven flax fiber composites
are given in Figure 4.3a and b. The detailed flexural test results are given in
Table B.2 in Appendix B. The flexural strength of the cotton thread stitched
laminates showed almost no change against the different stitch areal fraction,
while a decline in the flexural strength of up to 12% (at the highest stitch areal
fraction) was observed in results of the flax yarn stitched laminates. The flexural
modulus of the both types of stitched laminates remained unchanged with
increasing stitch areal fraction.
(a)
140
130
Flexural Strength (MPa)
120
110
100
90 Cotton thread stitch

Flax yarn stitch
80
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025

Chapter 4 89
(b)
7
6.5
6
Flexural Modulus (GPa)
5.5
4.5

3.5
Flax yarn stitch
3
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Figure 4.3. Effects of various stitch areal fractions of cotton thread and flax yarn on the
flexural properties of the woven composite; (a) flexural strength; (b) flexural stiffness.
It was observed that all fractures initiated at the bottom face of specimens which
is under tension in bending. The fiber failure under tension was the dominant
failure mode of the specimens, and there were no signs of compressive fiber
failure observed at the top plies of specimens. This is attributable to the high
crimp of woven preform fibers in this particular woven (4x4 hopsack) flax
fabric. The large deformation of composite ply due to buckling of fibers under
compression loading controls by the plasticity of matrix which is the dominant
failure mode at top plies in bending stress. The schematic of fracture mechanism
under three-point bending test is shown in Figure 4.4.

Resin-rich area Matrix plasticity (Compression)
Fiber failure (Tension)
Figure 4.4. Schematic of three-point bending test of woven flax composite.
Unlike the tensile properties, the flexural strength of stitched laminates is more
sensitive to the thickness of the stitch fibers. The maximum difference between
the average of the flexural strength of cotton-thread and flax-yarn stitched
composites (at the highest stitch areal fraction) is 11%, while the same
comparison for the tensile properties results in a difference less than 5%.
The existing difference between the flexural strength of the flax yarn and cotton
stitched laminates can be associated with the dimension of the stitches. It was
observed from the analysis of fractured specimens that the failure under bending
initiated at the stitch loop of flax yarn at bottom ply and propagated then along
with the stitch direction (Figure 4.5a). This fracture mechanism was not
generalizable to the cotton thread stitched specimens as the crack did not occur
at the location of the cotton stitches (Figure 4.5b). This could be due to the larger
resin rich areas generally created around the flax yarn stitch loops close to
Chapter 4 91
specimen surfaces which leads higher stress concentration at that point [105].
During three-point bending, the maximum stress happens at the outer surfaces
of the center of the specimen and the influence of stress concertation, therefore,
is more significant. In the case of cotton thread stitching, the resin rich areas
around the stitch loops are minor due to the smaller diameter of stitch thread,
and consequently, the stress concentration is lower.
(a) Flax yarn stitch (b) Cotton thread stitch
Figure 4.5. Failure of (a) Flax yarn and (b) Cotton thread stitched woven flax composite under
bending stress.
4.4. Effect of stitch areal fraction on the Mode I

interlaminar fracture toughness of flax woven fabric
composite
The interlaminar fracture toughness of the stitched woven flax fiber composite
laminates was investigated through the DCB test described in Chapter 3.9, at
various stitch areal fractions for flax yarn and cotton thread stitched laminates.
The detailed DCB test results including the measured values of initiation and
propagation Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness, GIC, are reported in
Appendix B.
Figure 4.6 shows the average values of the Mode I interlaminar fracture
toughness, GIC, obtained for both stitch fiber types, plotted against their stitch
areal fractions. Through-the-thickness stitching with cotton thread did not make
much enhancement to the GIC values as compared to the unstitched reference,
and the highest improvement attained was only about 4%. Unlike the cotton
thread stitched laminates, the flax yarn stitched laminates show a gradual and
continuous improvement of delamination resistance at increasing stitch areal
fraction, and achieved an increase of 21% at the highest stitch areal fraction
investigated.
It was observed during the DCB tests that the crack propagation of the cotton
stitched laminates was stable. Stable crack growth was also observed flax-
stitched laminates with lower stitch areal fractions (PWF1 and PWF2), but the
higher stitch areal fraction laminates (PWF3 and PWF4) exhibited stick-slip
crack propagation (unstable crack growth followed by crack arrest). When
analyzing stick-slip specimens, only the initiation and propagation data were
used to calculate the values of GIC (as per ASTM D5528 standard [173])
Chapter 4 93
4500
PWF4
PWF3
4000 PWF2
PWF1
GIc (J/m2)
3500
PW0
3000 PWC4
PWC2 PWC3
PWC1
2500
Flax yarn stitch
2000
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Figure 4.6. Effects of stitch areal fraction and stitch material on the interlaminar fracture
toughness (G IC) of woven flax/epoxy composites.
The values of GIC versus crack length (R-curve) of the highest stitch areal
fraction of the cotton thread and flax yarn stitched laminate (PWC4 and PWF4)
were compared to the unstitched laminate in Figure 4.7. A number of
explanations can be offered for the discrepancy between the performance of the
flax yarn and cotton thread stitched laminates. First, from the tensile test results
of wet rovings in Table 4.1, the tensile loads supported by the flax yarn during
crack bridging is likely to be very much higher than that of the cotton thread.
The lower absorbed energy at the failure of the cotton thread compared to that
of the flax yarn (Table 4.1), may have rendered the cotton threads ineffective at
the breaking loads experienced by the tests. This could explain why the fracture
energies of the cotton stitched laminate (highest stitch areal fraction, PWC4) in
Figure 4.7 was not much different from the unstitched specimen (PW0), but the
flax yarn stitched laminate (PWF4) performed so much better.

6000
5000
4000
GIc (J/m2)
3000
2000
1000
PW0 PWC4 PWF4
0
55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105
Delamination Length (mm)
Figure 4.7. R-curves of the stitched flax woven laminates using cotton thread and flax yarn at
almost equal stitch areal fraction of 0.02.
Second, the deteriorative effects of cotton stitching happened to cancel out any
interlaminar toughness improvements contributed by the bridging traction of the
cotton threads. As discussed previously, stitching would raise the incidence of
defects around the stitches (i.e. resin pockets, micro-voids and matrix micro-
cracks) within the composite by distorting and crimping the in-plane fibers as
well as reducing the resin permeability of the preform. In the presence of a
higher number of stitch punches per unit area, the higher concentration of defect
sites in close proximity in the cotton-thread stitched composites (Figure 4.8)
would have made it easier for the interlaminar micro-cracks to coalescence and
grow. Since the interlaminar toughness of the cotton-stitched laminates in
Figure 4.6 did not decrease but remained high and unaffected by the density of
stitching, a net toughening effect may be present, but due to low strength of
cotton thread, it was simply too small to show up statistically.

Chapter 4 95
(a) Delamination front

(b)
stitch-induced
defect
Interlaminar
micro-cracks
Figure 4.8. Comparison of the frequency of the stitch-induced defects at a similar stitch areal
fraction of (a) cotton thread and (b) flax yarn stitched composites.
Third, the bridging traction of the through-the-thickness flax yarn stitch fibers
is higher than those of the in-plane fibers but not for the cotton-thread stitch
fibers. In all the test specimens, a large-scale in-plane fiber bridging zone which
grows into a region several centimeters long at the wake of the crack front, was
typically observed during crack propagation. This extensive fiber bridging
activity encourages matrix shear yielding and significantly increases the energy
required to advance delamination. It normally supports stable crack propagation
through the flax composites but for the flax yarn stitched laminates, stick-slip
crack growth with crack initiation loads higher than the average stable
propagation loads (Figure 11) was a constant occurrence at stitch areal fractions
above 0.01. The thicker stitches (flax yarn) offering a combination of larger
fiber surface bonding area, higher breaking loads, intra-yarn fracture and slip-
bridging, are thought to contribute favorably to this successful stitch-toughening
outcome with the flax yarn.
The gain in Mode I fracture toughness through (flax yarn) stitching came at the
expense of the deterioration of some in-plane properties, hence there is a limit

to the efficiency of this toughening method. Comparing the tensile (Figure 4.2a-
b), flexural (Figure 4.3a-b) and DCB test results (Figure 4.6), the highest rate of
increase of the GIC values occurred below the stitch areal fraction of 0.01. The
percentage gain in GIC was 16% from 0 to 0.01 (stitch areal fraction), while it
was only 4% from 0.01 to 0.02. Coincidentally, the rate of decline in the tensile
and flexural properties of the composites was lower at stitch areal fractions
below 0.01. Therefore, increasing the stitch areal fraction beyond 0.01 for this
composite system is not likely to be very meaningful. Preservation of the in-
plane mechanical properties of natural fiber composites, which are not high to
begin with, certainly favors lower stitch areal fractions. The change in failure
propagation mode from stable to unstable stick-slip crack growth above the
stitch areal fraction of 0.01 also discourages the use of very high stitch densities
to achieve higher interlaminar toughness. Moderate use of stitching to enhance
the delamination resistance at localized areas, may possibly be the best way to
employ the benefit of this approach.
4.5. Fracture mechanisms of Mode I DCB samples from

SEM micrographs
In Figure 4.9, a fractured cotton and flax stitch are shown in the SEM images of
delaminated surfaces of stitched woven flax fiber laminate. It could be observed
from the fracture surfaces that unlike the synthetic fiber laminates stitched by
strong materials (for instance Kevlar) that tend to break at the surface stitch loop
and be pulled out from the laminate (see Figure 2.24) [103,115], both the cotton
thread and flax yarn tend to break at the delamination plane, with the average
Chapter 4 97
fiber pull-out length not longer than a single ply thickness of in-plane fibers
reinforcing the substrate. The crack development within the flax yarn stitched
laminates is therefore likely to be similar to the steps that have been proposed
by Ogo [174], as shown in Figure 4.10.
(a) (b)
Fractured flax
Fractured cotton stitch yarn
stitch thread
Figure 4.9. SEM image of fractured stitches within the stitched woven composite; (a) cotton
thread, (b) flax yarn.
First, the delamination (matrix) crack passed round the stitch fiber and then was
arrested behind the stitch line. Then the stitch fiber stretched as it began to carry
some load and small debonding would occur along the fiber-matrix interface.
Some fiber yarn splitting and slippage was likely to occur at this point as well,
as seen from the sub-bundle fractures occurring along then stitch yarn in the
SEM image (Figure 4.9b). Strain energy would then be built up in the fibers and
the surrounding matrix. Finally, the stitch fibers fractured and released the
stored energy causing the delamination crack to propagate at higher speeds
towards the vicinity of the next stitch line, giving rise to the unstable stick-slip
crack growth behavior. Similar fracture mechanism is proposed for the cotton
stitched laminates as well, but with much lower levels of strain energy build up
and release as a result of lower strength of the cotton thread.
A matrix crack passed round the The thread was stretched and The stitch thread failed and
stitch thread and then was some small debonding occurred the stored energy was released
arrested behind the thread. along the thread. to propagate the delamination
at higher speed until the next
stitch thread.
Figure 4.10. The 3-step delamination growth in the stitched flax fiber composites.
4.6. Effect of in-plane fiber architecture on the Mode I

interlaminar fracture toughness of unstitched and
stitched composite laminates
The influences of in-plane fiber architecture of stitched and unstitched
composite laminates on the Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness are
discussed in this section. Figure 4.11 shows some representative load-
displacement curves of both the unstitched and stitched laminates of UD and
woven flax fiber composites. Flax yarn was used to stitch both preforms with a
similar stitch areal fraction of 0.014. It can be seen that both stitched laminates
attained higher peak loads compared to their unstitched counterparts. Rapid
crack growth followed by crack arrest was observed during DCB test for
stitched laminates at this stitch areal fraction. However, the arrest loads never
dropped below the steady-state propagation loads of the unstitched laminates.

Chapter 4 99
300
PWF3 PW0 UDF UD0

250
200
Load (N)
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Cross-head Displacement (mm)
Figure 4.11. Typical Mode I load-displacement curves of unstitched and stitched flax UD and
woven laminates.
The measured Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness against crack length (R-
curve) were plotted in Figure 4.12 to compare laminates with different in-plane
fiber architectures. Again, both the UD and woven flax laminates were stitched
with flax yarns to the same stitch fraction of 0.014. To compare the interlaminar
properties of the flax fiber composites with synthetic glass fiber composites,
glass fiber DCB composite specimens with the lay-up of [0]10 and 𝑉𝑓 of 61%
were also manufactured (using the same resin system and processing method)
and tested. This information is very helpful in understanding the influences of
in-plane fiber architecture as well as through-the-thickness stitching on the
delamination resistance of the flax fiber composites.

5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
GIc (J/m2)
2500
PWF3
2000
PW0
1500 UDF
1000 UD0
500 UD glass
0
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Crack Length (mm)
Figure 4.12. Comparison of R-curves of the flax and glass fiber composites.
It is clearly seen in Figure 4.12 that the UD glass fiber composites (denoted by
‘UD glass’) have significantly lower interlaminar toughness compared to all the
UD and woven flax fiber composites. The GIC values of UD glass fiber
composites are less than half of that of the UD flax fiber composites. This is
attributable to the large difference in the degree of fiber bridging across the
delamination plane of the flax and glass fiber composites. The high strength
glass fibers tend to remain unbroken, and the occasional dislodged chords are
also less mobile when bridging the crack. UD flax fibers on the other hand are
formed by shorter technical fibers with irregular length, diameter, local
alignment, and nests more deeply between plies. Their irregular geometry
creates uneven fracture surfaces and the broken flax fibers are able to pull out
and adjusts its bridging angle across the crack plane more easily. Figure 4.13
compares the fiber bridging observed during Mode I delamination of the woven
Chapter 4 101
and UD flax composites with the UD glass fiber composite, where the large
fiber bridging zones in the natural fiber composites can extend up to 30mm in
the wake of the crack tip.
Comparing the results of the interlaminar fracture toughness for the UD flax
and woven flax composites in Figure 4.12, it is apparent that the form of the
fabric makes a significant difference. The average GIC values of the flax woven
composite are about three times higher than that of the flax UD composite. The
main toughening mechanism appears to be the nesting phenomena, which is
more significant for the woven composites due to the waviness of the fabric
surface. Generally nesting as well as the presence of 90°-bundles in a weave
result a rugged crack path, consequently increases the energy required to
propagate crack in-between the plies [175]. The interlaminar fracture toughness
therefore rises when nesting occurs within the laminate. A high level of nesting
was observed in delamination of woven flax fiber composite compared to UD
configuration. This can be clearly seen from the delamination propagation path
of the studied composites in Figure 4.13. Due to this, extensive in-plane fiber
fractures were observed on the delaminated surfaces of the woven DCB test
specimens (Figure 4.14a-c), and therefore a substantial amount of energy would
have been absorbed by the fiber pull out, fiber breakage and fiber-matrix
debonding mechanisms during delamination. The large-scale fiber bridging
observed for the woven composites (Figure 4.13a) also continues to be the other
toughening mechanisms for the flax woven composites [35]. The different level
of fiber bridging observed in woven and UD composites could partially explain
the large difference between their interlaminar fracture toughness.

(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 4.13. Fiber bridging during delamination growth; (a) woven flax fabric, (b)
unidirectional flax, and (c) unidirectional glass fiber laminate composite.
Finally, an examination of the spaces between the warp and weft tows of the
woven flax fabric shows that they are being filled by resin and forming
relatively large resin pockets (Figure 4.14c). During delamination, these
interlayer resin pockets can be stretched by the surrounding fibers they are
bonded to and absorb significant amounts of energy through matrix shear
yielding (Figure 4.14d) [176]. Higher interlaminar fracture toughness of the
woven fabric laminates over non-woven UD lay-ups was also observed in
conventional composites, and the increase had been attributed to the inherent
roughness of the woven fabric and the larger plastic yield zone at the crack tip
due to a larger resin-rich region between plies [177,178]. The confluence of

Chapter 4 103
these energy intensive fracture mechanisms, particularly the presence of resin
pockets and larger plastic yield zone size, made the woven fabric architecture
more favorable for producing high toughness natural fiber composites.
(a) (b)
Fibre breakage
Fibre pull-out Fiber-matrix debonding
(c) (d)
Matrix shear yielding
Weft fibres
Resin
Warp fibres
Figure 4.14. SEM of a fractured surface of the flax woven fabric composite after DCB test; (a)
fiber pull out and breakage, (b) Fiber-matrix debonding,(c) a resin-rich region between warp
and weft fibers, (d) matrix shear yielding.
4.7. Conclusion
The effect of introducing out-of-plane natural fiber stitches on the Mode I
interlaminar fracture toughness as well as tensile and flexural properties of the
continuous flax/epoxy composite laminates were presented. The experimental
findings showed that the presence of stitches led to notable reductions in the in-
plane tensile strength and stiffness of the composites by as much as 18% and
12% respectively, regardless of the type of stitch material used. The flexural
modulus of stitched composite remained almost unchanged. Nevertheless, the
flexural strength of the composite was reduced up to 12% when stitched by flax
yarn, while insignificant effect was observed for when stitched by cotton thread.
Stitching with the thicker 0.33 mm2 diameter flax yarn was found more effective
than the 0.055mm2 cotton threads in enhancing the Mode I fracture resistance
of woven flax/epoxy composites at similar stitch areal fractions. The Mode I
crack propagated in a stable progressive manner through cotton-thread-stitched
laminate at very similar fracture energies as the unstitched laminates. The flax-
yarn-stitched laminates, however, experienced a change in crack growth
behavior from stable propagation to stick-slip unstable fracture and the average
fracture loads measured (including the reduced loads at arrest points) were
higher than the average propagation fracture loads of the unstitched laminates.
This was observed in all the flax-yarn stitched composites having either
unidirectional or woven in-plane flax reinforcements. The ability to increase the
fracture energies by 21% was attributed to the combined factors of higher stitch
areal fraction, higher tensile loads that impregnated flax yarns (stitches) could
tolerate during crack bridging, and the presence of stitching-induced resin-rich
areas that appeared to support more extensive matrix shear yielding. One other
useful observation for the design of natural fiber composites with high Mode I
delamination resistance is that the woven preforms tend to promote greater
energy dissipation than the unidirectional flax preforms due to different
toughening mechanisms like higher level of nesting and fiber bridging.

Chapter 5 105
Chapter 5
Numerical modeling of Mode I interlaminar
failure of stitched flax fiber composites
5.1. Introduction
This chapter aims to propose a numerical approach to model the interlaminar
failure of stitched flax fiber composite laminates by simulation of the DCB test
studied in the previous chapter. The proposed approach to model the
interlaminar interface is constructed in two steps. In the first step, the
interlaminar failure of unstitched flax fiber laminate, as the parent laminate, is
modeled using cohesive elements with a nonlinear softening law in order to
model the large scale fiber bridging observed during the experimental study.
The experimental results are used to calibrate the parameters of the cohesive
law. In the second step, 2-node beam elements are superposed onto the cohesive
interface of the parent laminate at a prescribed distribution and density to model
the bridging stitches present in the validation samples. The stitch material
behavior and properties are obtained from the tensile test of impregnated stitch
fibers. The modeling strategy and material model used in this study are
described in Section 5.2. The model is evaluated based on the DCB test results
of the UD flax fiber/epoxy composite laminates. Finally, a parametric study is

106 Numerical modeling of Mode I interlaminar failure of stitched flax fiber composites
performed on the tensile strength of the stitches in order to assess the effect of
variation in the strength of stitches on the interlaminar fracture toughness of the
composite.
5.2. DCB test simulation of stitched flax fiber composite

5.2.1. Modeling strategy
A DCB test specimen model with the fixed dimension of 6mm thickness, 20mm
width and 62mm initial crack length was created and analyzed using the
commercial software Abaqus/Implicit. A schematic illustration of the stitched
DCB test specimen and the stitch configuration used in the FE modeling are
shown in Figure 5.1.
Top view
Pre-crack area Stitch line
12 mm
90° Crack propagation direction 5×4 mm 20 mm
0°
62 mm
170 mm
Side view Glass fiber Tabs [0]3
90°
0°
Pre-crack area Needle yarn
Bobbin yarn
Figure 5.1. Schematic of DCB specimen of the stitched UD flax fiber composite, and stitching
parameters.
Chapter 5 107
The 3D finite element (FE) model was based on the experimental test specimen
of the UD flax fiber composite laminates backed with the UD glass fiber
composite tabs studied in Chapter 4. The 3D FE model used to analyze
delamination in stitched flax fiber composite is shown in Figure 5.2.
D
A
B E
C
LEGEND: A Cohesive layer B Flax fiber laminate C GFRP Tab

D Stitch fiber E Aluminum load block
Figure 5.2. 3D finite element model of the DCB test specimen. A finer mesh was used at the
stitched region.
To model the interlaminar failure behavior of the stitched flax fiber composite,
three fracture mechanisms associated with delamination propagation are
considered:
I. Decohesion of interlaminar interface (resin-rich layer between the fiber
plies) at delamination front.

II. Bridging traction of in-plane fibers in the wake of the crack
(delamination) tip.
III. Bridging traction of stitch yarns across the delamination plane.
II. In-plane fiber bridging III. Trough-the-thickness stitch I. Decohesion process
Delamination front
lpc2 lpc1 lpc1: Decohesion process zone

lpc2: Fiber bridging process zone
Figure 5.3. Three fracture mechanisms involved in delamination propagation.
Figure 5.3 illustrates the schematic of the fracture mechanisms during
delamination propagation. The mechanisms I and II are modeled using trilinear
cohesive law, and mechanism III is modeled by introducing beam elements.
The implementation of the model follows two steps. First, the trilinear cohesive
law is calibrated using the experimental results of the unstitched UD flax fiber
laminates (see Section 5.3.2). Then, 2-node beam element is superposed with
Chapter 5 109
the cohesive element to model the interlaminar interface of the stitched UD flax
fiber laminate.
In the FEM model, each arm of the specimen consists of two 8-node
quadrilateral in-plane continuum shell elements (SC8R) in the thickness
direction to model the UD composites of flax and glass fibers ([0Glass

3 /0Flax
8 ]s ), as
illustrated in Figure 5.2. The mid-section interlaminar layer where the two arms
are joined is modeled by an 8-node three-dimensional cohesive element
(COH3D8) with a very small thickness of 0.01mm. The cohesive elements are
connected to neighboring continuum shell elements by sharing nodes.
A trilinear cohesive law is used to model the effect of the fiber bridging during
delamination. 2-node beam elements (B31) are placed between the top and
bottom nodes of the cohesive layer to introduce through thickness stitch
reinforcements, following the distribution shown in Figure 5.1.
The boundary conditions are introduced by applying a vertical displacement on
the center nodes of the top load block and constraining the center nodes of the
bottom load block along the vertical direction. These boundary conditions are
according to the DCB experiment where the bottom load block of the specimen
is pinned to the fixed jaw, and the top load block is pulled using displacement
control.
An element size of 0.25 mm by 0.5 was used at the stitched region, and a coarse
mesh of 1 mm by 0.5 was used for the rest of specimen. A matched mesh was
used for both the continuum element and cohesive element. The element size
was determined based on the rule proposed by Harper [44] for the cohesive zone
length to ensure that the element is small enough to capture the stress gradient
at the wake of crack tips.
5.2.2. Material Model
5.2.2.1. Elastic behavior of laminate
The in-plane flax and glass fiber reinforced laminates of the arms were modeled
as a homogeneous orthotropic elastic material using Abaqus continuum shell
element. Each arm of the double cantilever beam specimen is modeled with
continuum shell elements. This model is accurate enough to capture the elastic
deformation of the arms of DCB test specimen [179]. The values of elastic
constants used in the modeling of flax and glass composite laminates are
summarized in Table 5.1.
5.2.2.2. Delamination
In this study, delamination is modeled using Abaqus cohesive element
(COH3D8). A trilinear traction-separation law implemented in a UMAT
subroutine is used as the cohesive law. The trilinear cohesive law is used in
order to model the R-curve effect of interlaminar fracture toughness of flax fiber
composite. This R-curve effect was due to large-scale in-plane fiber bridging
during delamination propagation, as will be discussed in Chapter 4 and 5 [180].
In the presence of an R-curve, the toughness measured during crack propagation
increases until reaching a steady-state value. Such response is generally because
of involving more than one physical phenomenon in the fracture process, some
acting at small opening displacements and others acting at higher opening
displacements and extending further into the crack wake. It has been shown that
Chapter 5 111
the use of a traction-separation law with a nonlinear softening law is necessary
to model the R-curve effect [150–152,155].
In this study, the approach proposed by Airoldi et al. [151] is applied to the
experimental R-curve to determine the parameters of the trilinear cohesive law
(𝑛 and 𝑚). This trilinear law is obtained from superposition of two bilinear
cohesive laws, as shown in Figure 5.4. The calibration of the superposition
parameters ( 𝑛 and 𝑚 ) for the UD flax fiber laminate is described in
Section 5.3.2.
𝜎𝑐
n𝜎 𝑐 = +
=
(1 − 𝑛)𝜎 𝑐 =( − )
𝛿𝑖𝑛𝑖. 𝛿𝑐1 𝛿𝑚𝑎𝑥
Figure 5.4. Superposition of two bilinear cohesive law and resultant trilinear cohesive law
(reproduce from [151]).
The cohesive tractions (𝜎𝑛 , 𝜎𝑠 , 𝜎𝑡 ) are related to the corresponding separations
in the normal and (both) shear directions (𝛿𝑛 , 𝛿𝑠 , 𝛿𝑡 ) thru Eq.(5.1), [179]
〈𝛿𝑛 〉
𝜎𝑛 𝐷𝑛𝑛 (1 − 𝑑) 0 0 𝛿𝑛
𝜎 |𝛿𝑛 |
[ 𝑠] = [ 𝛿𝑠 ]
𝜎𝑡 0 𝐷𝑠𝑠 (1 − 𝑑) 0
𝛿𝑡
[ 0 0 𝐷𝑡𝑡 1 − 𝑑)]
(5.1)
in which 𝐷𝑛𝑛 , 𝐷𝑠𝑠 and 𝐷𝑡𝑡 are the penalty stiffness, and 𝑑 is the damage
variable (𝑑 = 0 for when there is no damage in the interface and 𝑑 = 1 once
the interface is completely fractured). The 〈 〉 in Eq.(5.1) is Macauley bracket
operator which is defined for every 𝛼 ∈ ℝ as
(𝛼 + |𝛼|)
〈𝛼〉 = (5.2)
2
In other words the damage variable does not influence the 𝜎𝑛 when crack is
closed in compression.
The penalty stiffness 𝐷𝑛𝑛 , 𝐷𝑠𝑠 and 𝐷𝑡𝑡 are artificial parameters used to
constrain the separation (or interpenetration) between the crack faces and have
perfect-bonding between plies before delamination onset. Therefore, they must
be large enough compared to the stiffness of the lamina [181–183]. Here, the
formulas’ of Eq.(5.3) are used to calculate the minimum values of the penalty
stiffness [182]:
𝑚𝑖𝑛
50𝐸3 𝑚𝑖𝑛
50𝐺13 𝑚𝑖𝑛
50𝐺23
𝐷𝑛𝑛 = , 𝐷𝑠𝑠 = , 𝐷𝑡𝑡 =
𝑡𝑝 𝑡𝑝 𝑡𝑝
(5.3)
where 𝐸3 , 𝐺13 and 𝐺23 are the elastic modulus of the lamina and 𝑡𝑝 is the
thickness of a single ply. The values of the material parameters used are given
in Table 5.1.
Delamination onset is modeled using the quadratic failure criterion:
2
𝜎𝑛 2 𝜎𝑠 2 𝜎𝑡
( 𝑐) + ( 𝑐) + ( 𝑐) = 1
𝜎𝑛 𝜎𝑠 𝜎𝑡 (5.4)
Chapter 5 113
in which 𝜎𝑛 , 𝜎𝑠 and 𝜎𝑡 are the normal and shear stresses on the interface, and
𝜎𝑛𝑐 , 𝜎𝑠𝑐 and 𝜎𝑡𝑐 are the normal and shear strengths of the interface [184]. Once
Eq. (5.4) is satisfied, delamination is initiated. Then, interface damage evolution
is specified based on a fracture energy criterion and the bilinear softening law:
∞
∫ 𝜎eff 𝑑𝛿eff = 𝐺𝐶𝑚
0 (5.5)
in which 𝜎eff and 𝛿 are the effective traction and displacement, respectively
[185], and 𝐺𝐶𝑚 is the mixed-mode fracture energy which is determined by the
Benzeggagh and Kenane (B-K) [186] relation as
𝐺𝐼𝐼 𝜂
𝐺𝐶𝑚 = 𝐺𝐼𝐶 + (𝐺𝐼𝐼𝐶 − 𝐺𝐼𝐶 ) ( )
𝐺𝑇 (5.6)
where 𝜂 is a material property, 𝐺𝐼𝐶 and 𝐺𝐼𝐼𝐶 are the Mode I and II critical
fracture toughness, and 𝐺𝑇 = 𝐺𝐼 + 𝐺𝐼𝐼 . The material properties used in the
delamination failure criterion are given in Table 5.1.
5.2.2.3. Modeling of stitching yarns by beam elements
Basic assumptions:
According to the experimental observations, following assumptions are made
as a basis for the stitch model [187]:
A. The stitch yarns are cylindrical with circular cross section.
B. The stitch yarns only carry tensile load.
C. The failure of stitch yarns is brittle like failure (fiber failure) under
tension.
D. The breakage of stitch yarns is assumed to occur at the delamination
plane.
E. No slippage occurs at the embedded stitches (i.e. no stitch pull out).
F. The tensile properties of the stitch yarns are obtained from the tensile
test of impregnated stitch yarns.
The SEM of a delaminated surface of the flax yarn stitched UD and woven flax
fiber composite associated with the assumptions (D) and (E) are shown in
Figure 5.5.
(a)
Fractured flax
stitch yarn
UD flax fibers
no slippage
(b)
Fractured flax
stitch yarn no slippage
Figure 5.5. SEM of the delaminated surface for the DCB test specimen of (a) UD and (b)
woven flax fiber composite. Fracture of stitch (flax) yarn occurs at the delamination surface
with minimum fiber pull-out.
Chapter 5 115
The crack bridging traction of through-the-thickness stitch reinforcements is
modeled using one-dimensional (1D) 2-node beam elements with a brittle
fracture response implemented in a UMAT subroutine. A maximum
longitudinal stress failure criterion was used to determine fiber failure under
tension. The material properties used in the modeling of the DCB test are
In this study, the material properties of the flax fiber laminate and its
interlaminar fracture toughness were empirically determined from the tensile
and DCB test results and the elastic properties of the glass fiber laminates were
adapted from literature [151].
Table 5.1. Material properties used in the numerical model of DCB test.
Glass fiber composite [151]
E11 = 47.79 GPa; E22 , E33 = 13.6 GPa; G12 , G13 = 5.89 GPa; G23 = 5.23 GPa
𝑣12 , 𝑣13 = 0.27; 𝑣23 = 0.3
UD flax fiber composite
E11 = 25.3 GPa; E22 , E33 = 4.1 GPa; G12 , G13 = 3.4† GPa; G23 = 2.8† GPa
𝑣12 , 𝑣13 = 0.25; 𝑣23 = 0.3†
𝐺𝐼𝐶 = 1.25 KJ/m2 ; 𝐺𝐼𝐼𝐶 = 1.57 KJ/m2 ; η=1
σC𝑛 = 35 Mpa; σ𝑆C = 50 Mpa
Stitch (flax) yarn
E11 = 38.97 GPa; 𝑋𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ

𝑡 = 330MPa; 𝑅 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ∗ = 0.32 mm
† Estimated values.
∗ Stitch cross − sectional radius.
5.3. Modeling of in-plane fiber bridging by means of

cohesive law
In this Section, the trilinear cohesive law of Figure 5.4, which is being obtained
from superposition of two linear softening law, is used to model the
delamination crack propagation in the presence of fiber bridging (mechanisms
I and II). The semi-analytical approach proposed by Airoldi et al. [151] is
applied to the DCB test results (R-curves) of the unstitched UD flax fiber
composite to determine the parameters of the superposed cohesive laws.
5.3.1. Testing for fracture properties of unstitched composite
The GIC values obtained from the DCB tests of the unstitched UD flax fiber
composites in relation to the change in crack length, ∆a, during crack
propagation, are presented in Figure 5.6. In this figure, in addition to the
Modified Beam Theory (MBT) method, the GIC values determined from the
Compliance Calibration (CC) and the Modified Compliance Calibration (MCC)
methods [173] are also plotted to check for differences in the calculation of GIC
values through the use of different data reduction methods. The procedures of
applying these methods to the test data are described in Appendix A. It was
observed that these three methods, which are all based on the relation of Irwin-
Kies for strain energy release rate [188], led to a very similar GIC values with a
maximum variation of 2.5% for all stitched and unstitched natural fiber
composites (also see Table B.3 in Appendix B). Since the analysis is robust and
the MBT analytical corrections, as the most conservative method, work just as
well for the stitched composites, the GIC values reported and used for simulation
in this thesis are all calculated based on the MBT method.

Chapter 5 117
From the DCB test results of the unstitched flax composite, it was observed that
the interlaminar fracture toughness rose steadily with increasing (delamination)
crack length as the crack propagated in steady-state. In general, such a response
which is often referred to as the resistance curve or R-curve, indicates the
involvement of different physical phenomena occurring in tandem during the
fracture process. The R-curve association with fiber bridging is a well-
established phenomenon [189] and the slow rise in fracture resistance of the
flax/epoxy specimens up to the first peak G IC value at ∆a  20-30 mm
(Figure 5.6) agrees with our experimental finding of a large natural fiber
bridging zone that visually measured up to 25-30 mm in length when it was
fully developed (Figure 5.7). The R-curve effect is attributed to the increase in
apparent stiffness and delamination resistance of the specimen as a result of
fiber bridging.
This large scale fiber bridging is believed to be a unique characteristic of
untwisted UD natural fiber composites, as the preform architecture allows the
elementary natural fibers to behave in a way similar to discontinuous aligned
long fibers. The long bridging zone could also explain why the interlaminar
fracture toughness of the flax composite is significantly higher than those
measured for glass fiber composites (671 J/m2) [190] (see Chapter 4.6). It is
therefore essential to consider the effect of fiber bridging in the FE delamination
model for natural fiber composites, in order to achieve a more accurate
prediction of their strength and fracture behavior.

1600
1400 Propagation GC
1200
1000
GIC (J/m2)
800 Initiation G1
600
400
Visual onset Propagation (MBT)
200 Deviation from linearity Propagation (CC)
5% offset Propagation (MCC)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Change in crack length, ∆a (mm)
Figure 5.6. Experimental G IC values of an unstitched UD flax/epoxy composite calculated

using the MBT, CC and MCC methods proposed under ASTM D5528 [31].
The experimental results show that the average initiation value of GIC for the
UD flax/epoxy composite is 0.771 kJ/m2 and the steady-state GIC value is 1.25
kJ/m2 which is reached after approximately 25-30 mm of crack propagation.
The length of crack propagation before the steady-state phase of Mode I critical
strain energy release rate is estimated based on the mean value of the steady-
state GIC with a 95% confidence interval (for upper and lower limit).
It has been established for synthetic fiber reinforced composites that Mode I
delamination, which is assumed to propagate in the homogeneous resin-rich
region in-between fiber layers, can be modeled by a bilinear traction-separation
law (cohesive zone model) [191]. However, this model is not able to represent
the GIC R-curve when delamination is accompanied by extensive fiber bridging.
To address this, several authors have shown that the traction-separation law with
Chapter 5 119
non-linear softening can be used to model the R-curve response as well as the
enlarged process zone associated with crack bridging [150,152,153,155].
Fiber bridging zone
Figure 5.7. In-plane fiber bridging across the delamination plane of UD flax fiber composite
during DCB test.
In the next section, the trilinear cohesive law, which is being obtained from the
superposition of two linear softening law, is used to model the delamination
crack propagation in the presence of fiber bridging.
5.3.2. Superposition of cohesive laws for modeling the effect of
fiber bridging
A trilinear cohesive law (bilinear softening) of Figure 5.4, obtained from
superposing of two bilinear cohesive laws, is applied to model the fiber bridging
effect encountered during Mode I fracture of UD flax fiber composites.
Accordingly, a semi-analytical equation for extracting the superposition
parameters of the cohesive laws from the experimentally obtained R-curves are
used [151]. In this method, two bilinear cohesive laws with their own specific
characteristics are superposed to obtain a trilinear cohesive law. The
superposition parameters of m and n (Figure 5.4) are defined as follows:
𝐺1 = 𝑚𝐺𝑐 , 𝐺2 = (1 − 𝑚)𝐺𝑐
𝜎1 = 𝑛𝜎𝑐 , 𝜎2 = (1 − 𝑛)𝜎𝑐
(5.7)
where 𝜎 and 𝐺 refers to the cohesive strength and Mode I fracture toughness,
respectively. According to the experimental R-curve of the UD flax fiber
composites (Figure 5.6), the average initiation value of Mode I critical strain
energy release rate (𝐺1 ) was 0.771 kJ/m2 and the steady-state value (𝐺𝑐 ) was
1.25 kJ/m2 which was reached after approximately 25-30 mm of crack
propagation. Therefore, using the first relation of Eq.(5.7), the parameter m can
be calculated as follows
m = 𝐺1 ⁄𝐺𝑐 = 0.616
(5.8)
5.3.2.1. Calculation of the superposition parameter n
In order to determine the value of the parameter n, it is necessary to establish a
relationship between the characteristic length of the process zone for the
trilinear cohesive law (𝑙𝑐_𝑆𝑢𝑝 ) and the characteristic length of each primary
bilinear cohesive laws, 𝑙𝑐𝑖 , 𝑖 = 1, 2.
There are special cases in the relation between the characteristic length of the
process zone for the trilinear and the primary bilinear laws. These special case
are as bellow:
I. The sum of two bilinear laws is a bilinear law when 𝑚 = 𝑛.

Chapter 5 121
II. If one of the two bilinear cohesive laws has no associated fracture
toughness (i.e. either 𝑚 = 0 or 𝑚 = 1 ), the contribution of that
particular cohesive law is neglected.
III. If the strength of a bilinear cohesive with a nonzero fracture toughness
tends to zero (i.e. either 𝑛 → 0 or 𝑛 → 1), the superposition process
zone will tend to infinity.
IV. The order of the superposition of the two bilinear laws is irrelevant.
These special cases for the length of process zone of the trilinear cohesive law
(𝑙𝑐_𝑆𝑢𝑝 ) can be stated as follows
𝑙𝑐_𝑆𝑢𝑝 (𝑛, 𝑛) = 𝑙𝑐
𝑙𝑐_𝑆𝑢𝑝 (𝑛, 𝑚 = 0) = 𝑙𝑐2
𝑙𝑐_𝑆𝑢𝑝 (𝑛, 𝑚 = 1) = 𝑙𝑐1
lim 𝑙𝑐_𝑆𝑢𝑝 = ∞
𝑛→0 𝑜𝑟 1
𝑙𝑐_𝑆𝑢𝑝 (𝑛, 𝑚) = 𝑙𝑐_𝑆𝑢𝑝 (1 − 𝑛, 1 − 𝑚) (5.9)
The characteristic length of the process zone for the trilinear cohesive law
(𝑙𝑐_𝑆𝑢𝑝 ), based on the superposition parameters (𝑚, 𝑛), can be calculated using
the following interaction equation [151]
𝑚2 1 − 𝑚 2 𝑚(1 − 𝑚)
𝑙𝑐_𝑆𝑢𝑝 (𝑛, 𝑚) = [ 2 + ( ) − ]𝑙
𝑛 1−𝑛 𝑛(1 − 𝑛) 𝑐 (5.10)
in which all the conditions of Eq.(5.9) are satisfied. In Eq.(5.10), 𝑙𝑐 is the
material characteristic length which is an intrinsic fracture property of material.
The characteristic length 𝑙𝑐 is usually estimated as [151]

𝐸′𝐺
𝑙𝑐 = 𝛾 (5.11)
𝜎𝑐2
where 𝐺 and 𝜎𝑐 is the fracture toughness and strength of the material,
respectively. The modulus 𝐸 ′ under plane stress condition is defined as
−1
𝐸22 𝐸22
𝐸 ′ = 2𝐸22 (√2 [√ − 𝑣21 ] + )
𝐸11 𝐺12
(5.12)
where 𝑣21 is the in-plane Poisson’s ratio, 𝐸22 and 𝐺12 are the transvers Young
modulus and shear modulus, respectively. In Eq. (5.11), γ is a non-dimensional
parameter and depends on the damage/yielding process.
Generally, the length of process zone under steady-state propagation is

𝑠𝑠
estimated by the characteristic length (𝑙𝑝𝑧 ≈ 𝑙𝑐 ). However, the estimation is
valid only when the material characteristic length 𝑙𝑐 is smaller than the
structural dimension. This is because the value of γ in Eq. (5.11) is noticeably
influenced by the structural dimension. Airoldi et al. [151] proposed the
empirical relation of Eq.(5.13) in order to consider the effect of structural

𝑠𝑠
thickness in prediction of the steady-state process zone length, 𝑙𝑝𝑧 ,
𝛽
𝑠𝑠
𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑚
𝑙𝑝𝑧 =( ) 𝑙𝑐
𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑚 + 𝑙𝑐
(5.13)
where 𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑚 is the block thickness (thickness of plies stacking with same
orientation), and β is a non-dimensional parameter. They also conducted a
numerical analysis to assess the value of γ and β, and showed that when 𝛾 =
Chapter 5 123
0.70 and 𝛽 = 0.71, the best prediction of the process zone length was achieved
𝑠𝑠
for various rage of process zone lengths (𝑙𝑝𝑧 ).
Thus, Eq. (5.13) can be used to applied thickness correction on the characteristic
length obtained from Eq. (5.10) for the superposed cohesive law, 𝑙𝑐_𝑆𝑢𝑝 , as
𝛽
𝑠𝑠
𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑚
𝑙𝑝𝑧_𝑆𝑢𝑝 =( ) 𝑙𝑐_𝑆𝑢𝑝
𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑚 + 𝑙𝑐_𝑆𝑢𝑝
(5.14)
Nonlinear Eq. (5.14) can be solved for 𝑙𝑐_𝑆𝑢𝑝 , in which 𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑚 = 2.99 𝑚𝑚 and the
𝑠𝑠
steady-state process zone lengths is 𝑙𝑝𝑧_𝑆𝑢𝑝 = 30 𝑚𝑚 (estimated form
experimental R-curve). Finally, using the calculated values of parameter m and
𝑙𝑐_𝑆𝑢𝑝 , the nonlinear Eq. (5.10) can be solved for the parameter n iteratively,
which results in
𝑛 = 0.9699
(5.15)
The results of the FE analysis of DCB specimen using the superposition
parameters 𝑛 =0.9699 and 𝑚 = 0.6160 are presented in the next section.
5.3.3. FEM modeling of DCB test of unstitched composite
The trilinear cohesive law using the calculated values of 𝑛 and 𝑚 were applied
to the cohesive elements of the FE model of the DCB specimen. The force-
displacement response of the DCB test specimen model of unstitched UD flax
fiber composite using bilinear and trilinear cohesive laws, compared to the
experimental data, are shown in Figure 5.8.

It can be clearly seen that the prediction with the linear softening law is not
suitable for modeling the interlaminar fracture of the UD natural fiber composite.
When the initiation value of GIC is used (denoted by ‘FEM-Bilinear law (GIC
=0.77)’), the delamination onset is captured with good accuracy. However, the
model is not able to predict the force response during delamination propagation
and the overall force response is underestimated. On the other hand, Using the
steady-state GIC value (denoted by ‘FEM-Bilinear law (GIC =1.25)’)
overestimates the failure loads in the early period of crack growth that most
likely coincides with the development of the fiber bridging zone. Nevertheless,
it is able to capture the delamination propagation response in the presence of
fiber bridging traction which acts over the extended damage zone in the wake
of the crack tip. These results thereby confirm that the use of a bilinear law to
model delamination in the presence of extensive fiber bridging (Figure 5.7), can
introduce severe inaccuracy to the prediction of failure loads during DCB test.
Conversely, the use of the trilinear cohesive law (denoted by ‘FEM-Trilinear
law (GIC =1.25)’) gave a good approximation to the experimental load-
displacement curve. The nonlinear softening law is able to predict the onset of
nonlinearity of the loading curve corresponding to the physical onset as well as
the propagation of delamination. Generally, in the presence of fiber bridging,
the damage process zone is extended by inducing bridging traction over the
wake of the crack tip which leads to significant increase in the crack growth
resistance of fiber reinforced composites. Therefore, the use of nonlinear
softening law is necessary to differentiate decohesion of the matrix at the crack
tip and bridging traction in the crack wake.

Chapter 5 125
90
80
70
60
50
Load (N)
40
30
20
Exp #1 FEM-Bilinear law (GIC=0.77)
10 Exp #2 FEM-Bilinear law (GIC=1.25)
Exp #3 FEM-Trilinear law (GIC=1.25)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Cross-head displacement (mm)
Figure 5.8. Force–displacement response of DCB test specimen of unstitched UD flax fiber
composite; FEM & Experimental results.
The experimental R-curve is compared with the predicted results from the FE
analysis in Figure 5.9. Similar to the experimental data reduction method (i.e.
MBT), the Irwin-Kies equation (see Chapter3.9) was used to calculate the Mode
I critical strain energy release rate, GIC, of the FEM analysis.
The numerical results indicate that the trilinear law is able to predict the
initiation and the final steady-state values of experimental GIC very well.
However, the experimental R-curve hits a peak GIC before reaching steady state
propagation which is not predicted in the FE analysis results. This is because
the trilinear cohesive law parameters of 𝑚 and 𝑛 were calculated based on the
average steady-state GIC value of 1.25 kJ/m2. As discussed previously, this
value is chosen so as to cover a representative set of steady-state data points

from the experimental R-curve. It was shown by Sorensen [150] that the shape
of R-curve, i.e. the relation between the GIC and the crack length, was not
material property and depended on specimen geometry once large-scale fiber
bridging occurs across the delamination plane. However, the initiation and
steady-state value of Mode I critical strain energy release rate (GIC) were found
to be independent of specimen geometry.
The trilinear cohesive law obtained by this method was therefore employed as
the interlaminar response of the parent laminate to model the delamination of
stitched laminates.
1600
1400
1200
1000
GIc (J/m2)
800
600
400 Experimental
FEM-Bilinear law (G=0.77)
200 FEM-Bilinear law (G=1.25)
FEM-Trilinear law (G=1.25)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
∆a (mm)
Figure 5.9. Experimental R-curve and FEM analysis results of bilinear and trilinear cohesive
law.
Chapter 5 127
5.4. Results of FEM modeling of DCB testing of stitched

composite
The force-displacement response of the numerical simulation of the stitched UD
flax fiber composite is plotted against the experimental results in Figure 5.10.
As discussed in Chapter 4, the DCB tests of the stitched UD composite exhibit
unstable crack growth followed by arrest, giving rise to stick-slip response in
the load-displacement curves. Here, the experimental curves are intended to
provide an indication of the dispersion of the onset of the stick-slip crack
propagation due to variation in the properties of stitch yarns (see Table 4.1) as
well as the stitching distribution.
As it can be seen, the FEM model shows reasonably good agreement with the
experimental responses. Although the first stick-slip onset fracture point is
different, the predicted response in terms of the peak and crack arresting loads
as well as the linear behavior of the load-displacement curve, are within the
range of the experimental results. The slope is characteristic of DCB specimens
due to the change in arm compliance as the effective arm length increases. The
regularity of the stick-slip crack growth in both numerical and experimental
results do suggest that the behavior is intrinsically linked to the strain energy
build up and release events induced by the stitch reinforcements.

140
Exp #1
120 Exp #2
Exp #3
Exp #4
100
FEM
80
Load (N)
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Figure 5.10. Force–displacement response of DCB test specimen of stitched UD flax fiber
composite; Experimental versus FEM analysis results.
A number of explanations can be offered for the discrepancy between the
experimental and predicted force-displacement response. First, some variation
in thickness of the DCB specimen arms which can occur with the resin infusion
manufacturing method leads to some variations in the initial stiffness of the
specimens (before crack initiation).
Second, the discrepancy in the stick-slip responses is also attributable to the
small local variations in the stitch punching locations and distribution. In
practice, actual stitch parameters (stitch length and row spacing) do deviate
from the nominal values used in the numerical simulation (see Figure 5.1) due
to hand-stitching of the fiber preform.

Chapter 5 129
Third, the variation could also have arisen from the properties assigned to the
stitch elements, as the consistency and properties of natural fibers can often vary
by up to 25-30%. A parametric sensitivity study of tensile properties of the stitch
fibers is given in next section. However, despite these discrepancies, the
predicted response is considered to be reasonably representative.
Figure 5.11 compares the predicted Mode I critical strain energy release rate of
the stitched DCB model with the experimental values of G IC with an identical
stitch areal fraction. It is noteworthy that the stitch areal fraction, despite the
plausible variation in the stitch distribution caused by hand-stitching, remains
unchanged in all the test specimens.
The results of Figure 5.11 indicate that the prediction of the stick-slip initiation
GIC values by the FEM analysis do give a reasonable representation of the
average of the experimental values for the stitched composites. The virtual DCB
test also exhibits the R-curve response, ramping from initiation GIC =
1.3 (kJ⁄m2 ) to the constant stick-slip propagation values of GIC =
2.26 (kJ⁄m2 ), which agree with the average of the experimental results very
well. The average experimental values are GIC = 1.34 (kJ⁄m2 ) and GIC =
2.22 (kJ⁄m2 ) for initiation and stick-slip propagation respectively. It is now
confirmed experimentally and with FEM prediction that stitching with twist-
less flax yarn can enhance the average interlaminar fracture toughness from
GIC = 1.25 (kJ⁄m2 ) for unstitched laminates to GIC = 2.26 (kJ⁄m2 ) for the
flax yarn stitched composites – i.e. an improvement of 80%. Detailed DCB test
results for unstitched and stitched flax fiber composites are presented in Table
B.3 of Appendix B.
3000
2500
2000
1500
GIc (J/m2)
Exp #1
1000 Exp #2
Exp #3
Exp #4
500
FEM
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Figure 5.11. Experimental and FEM analysis R-curve of stitched UD flax fiber composite.
The evolution of the crack length against the cross-head opening displacement
obtained by experimental and FEM simulation of un/stitched DCB test
specimens are compared in Figure 5.12. The model appears to be able to give a
satisfactory prediction of interlaminar failure of the unstitched and stitched
specimens. The fit between the predicted and experiment crack lengths for the
unstitched composite laminates is very good. This means that for any given
values of crack length, the numerical compliance (P/δ) accurately matches the
experimental values.
For the stitched model, despite the discrepancy between the crack arrest lengths,
the numerical model shows that the crack growth takes place at a similar rate to
the experimental data. As discussed above, the difference between the predicted
crack length and the experimental data (against the cross-head opening
displacement) is attributable to the discrepancy in stitch punching locations

Chapter 5 131
between the actual specimens and the numerical model as well as intrinsic
variation in the tensile properties of the stitch fibers. It is worth mentioning, due
to stick-slip crack growth, only the crack arrest length and the associated
maximum opening displacement are plotted for the stitched composites.
60
50
cross-head opening
displacement
40
∆a
30
20
10 Exp (Stitched) FEM (Stitched)
Exp (Unstitched) FEM (Unstitched)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Cross-head opening displacement (mm)
Figure 5.12. Change in crack length against cross-head opening displacement for experimental
and FEM analysis
Figure 5.13 compares the delamination growth threshold markings on the
numerical and experimental load-displacement curves of the stitched
composites (i.e. point 1, 2 and 3). As can be seen, there is a good agreement
between the calculated and the measured curves. The numerical model is able
to accurately predict the bilinear rise in the force in the elastic region, the peak
force as well as the force jagged pattern due to the stick-slip crack growth.
(a) Experimental (b) Numerical

140 140
Unstitched (Exp) Stitched (FEM)
120
 Stitched (Exp) 120  Unstitched (FEM)
100 100
  
Load (N)
80 80
Load (N)

60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Cross-head displacement (mm) Cross-head displacement (mm)
Figure 5.13. The 3-step delamination growth marking on the load-displacement curve of DCB
test of stitched composite; comparison of prediction with experimental results.
In the DCB test, the opening force of the specimen’s arms is linear till it reaches
the point 1, as shown in Figure 5.13. This point indicates the onset of
delamination from the end of the PTFE insert (pre-crack) in both the unstitched
and stitched composites (Figure 5.14a). Beyond point 1, unlike the stable crack
propagation in the unstitched composite, the linear force rise continues in the
stitched composite while the gradient is slightly changed compared to the earlier
part. At this step, the crack passes round the stitch fiber and is arrested behind
the stitch line while the stitch fibers are bridging the crack, as shown in the
damage evolution of the cohesive layer of the DCB test model in Figure 5.14b.
The opening force then rises to a maximum value at point 2, where the failure
stress of stitch elements is reached. Finally, the stitch elements fracture and the
force drops abruptly till stops at point 3, while the force is always above the
failure force of the unstitched composite. Releasing the stored strain energy in
the stitch elements causes the crack to propagate at higher speeds towards the
vicinity of the next stitch line, as shown in Figure 5.14c. This progressive failure
Chapter 5 133
is repeated for each stitch line and leads to the unstable stick-slip crack growth
behavior observed experimentally.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 5.14. Interlaminar damage (delamination) evolution within the stitched UD flax fiber
composite; (a) the cohesive interface failure propagates and passes round the stitch elements,
(b) the crack then is arrested behind the stitch elements while the stitch elements are stretched,
(c) the stitch elements fractures and the stored energy is released to propagate the cohesive
crack at higher speed until the next row of stitch elements.
5.4.1. Parametric study
It was discussed in the previous section that variation in the tensile properties
of stitch yarn, i.e. flax yarn, can explain the discrepancy between the predicted
and measured values of the Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of the
stitched composite. It is rather clear that the strength of the stitch material is the
most important parameter and have a significant influence on the bridging
traction, and on the delamination resistance accordingly. In this regards, a
parametric study was performed to determine the effect of the tensile strength,
Xtstitch , of the stitch yarn on the delamination resistance of the stitched UD flax
fiber composite.
The experimental study on the tensile properties of the flax yarn showed a
coefficient of variation of 25-30% for the tensile strength of the impregnated
flax yarn (see Table 4.1). Here, we consider two extreme values for the strength
of the stitch elements in which they are 15% above and below the average value
Chapter 5 135
of the strength used in FEM analysis in previous section (i.e. Xtstitch =
380 MPaand Xtstitch = 280 MPa for the maximum and minimum values of the
strength, respectively).
The effect of variation of stitch strength on the load-displacement response and
the interlaminar fracture toughness are shown in Figure 5.15a and b,
respectively. As can be seen, the variation of the strength of stitch elements has
noticeable effect on the opening load as well as the interlaminar fracture
toughness, GIC. A variation of 30% in the strength of stitch elements leads to
20% and 31% change in the peak force and the propagation value of GIC,
respectively. This is an indication of the sensitivity of Mode I interlaminar
fracture toughness to the bridging traction taking place across the delamination
plane. In other words, any variation in the strength of the stitch material would
be reflected in the toughness adding to the composite. It is apparent from the
Figure 5.15b that the majority of the experimental data fall between the
numerically predicted upper and lower limits. As a result, it can be said that the
dispersion in the experimentally measured values of GIC is mainly attributable
to the variation in the strength of the stitch yarn.

(a)
140
120
100
Force (N)
80
60
40
Main
Stitch Strength = 330 Mpa (average)
20 Stitch
25% X Strength = 380 Mpa (+15%)
StitchXStrength = 280 Mpa (- 15%)

_25%
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
(b)
3000
2500
2000
GIc (J/m2)
1500
1000 Experimental
Experimental
Stitch Strength = 330 Mpa (average)
Main
500 Stitch
25% X Strength = 380 Mpa (+15%)
_25%
StitchXStrength = 280 Mpa (- 15%)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Figure 5.15. Effect of variation of stitch strength; (a) Force–displacement response and (b) R-
curve of the stitched UD flax fiber composite.
5.5. Conclusion
The effect of introducing out-of-plane flax fiber stitches on the Mode I
interlaminar fracture toughness of the UD flax/epoxy composite laminates was
experimentally and numerically investigated. The DCB test results for the
unstitched flax fiber composites showed a strong R-curve effect which is

Chapter 5 137
attributed to the large-scale in-plane fiber bridging, observed during
delamination advancement. The experimental findings also showed that the use
of twist less flax yarn stitches was effective and can improve the Mode I critical
strain energy release rate at by around 78% to over 2 kJ/m2.
In the numerical analysis, a cohesive element with trilinear cohesive law
obtained from the superposition of two bilinear cohesive laws was used to
model the R-curve effect. It was shown that this approach is accurate enough to
capture the initiation and steady-state propagation values of GIC of the R-curve
induced by the large scale in-plane fiber bridging. The resultant cohesive
interface was then superposed with beam elements as the stitch fibers to
simulate the delamination of stitched laminate in the presence of extensive in-
plane fiber bridging. The stitch model was built based on experimental
observations in which the fracture of stitches was found to occur at the
delamination plane with no slippage effect at the embedded end. The FE
analysis results showed reasonably good agreement with the experimental
results and the prediction of the Mode I critical strain energy release rate for the
initiation and propagation phase of the delamination were within the range of
the measured values. Moreover, the parametric study on the strength of the
stitch yarn showed that the variation in the measured values of G IC was in line
with the dispersion of strength of the stitch yarn. The results of this chapter
suggest that stitching is a promising technique to enhance the interlaminar
fracture toughness of flax/epoxy composite laminates, and it is crucial to
consider the effects of in-plane fiber bridging to have an accurate
characterization of GIC values for stitched natural fiber composites.

138 Low-velocity impact performance of stitched flax/epoxy composite laminates
Chapter 6
Low-velocity impact performance of
stitched flax/epoxy composite laminates
6.1. Introduction
Low-velocity transverse impact performance of composites relates to how well
the material can stand up to damages caused by tool drops and low impact strike
events that generally occur in an operating environment. Its relevance and
importance for traditional carbon/glass composites arises from observations that
low energy impact damages typically manifest in the form of sub-surface
delamination which makes surface detection difficult [13,14]. Although natural
fiber composites may not withstand the same level of impact forces,
understanding its low-velocity transverse impact behavior and damage
development remains a key requirement for its design, damage detection, and
maintenance.
The present chapter is devoted to the understanding of the low-velocity impact
performance of the optimally-stitched flax fiber composites developed in
chapter 4. Drop-weight impact test was performed to investigate the behavior
of the unstitched and stitched woven flax/epoxy composites as well as cross-ply
flax/epoxy composites under low-velocity impact loads in accordance to ASTM

Chapter 6 139
standard D7136 (3.10). Low-velocity drop weight impact tests are conducted at
two different energy levels, 19.6J and 44.6J, to attain both non-perforation and
full-perforation impact conditions, for the study of impact damage resistance
and impact energy absorption behavior of the composites empirically.
6.2. Specimen types and the drop-weight impact test

parameters
It was presented earlier that an optimum areal fraction of stitch should be
considered when using natural fiber stitches to strike a balance between the
improvement in interlaminar fracture toughness against the reduction in tensile
properties. Again, twist-less flax yarn and twisted cotton thread were used to
stitch together four layers of the flax woven fabrics at an equivalent and
optimum stitch areal fraction of close to 0.01. Unstitched cross-plies [0/90]4s of
continuous flax fibers are also manufactured to a similar thickness for
benchmarking. The plain weave specimens are denoted PW0 for unstitched,
PWC for cotton-thread stitched and PWF for flax yarn stitched, respectively.
UD0 refers to the unstitched cross-ply specimens.
Stitch parameters applied to the woven preforms in the warp (X) direction were:
𝑆𝑅 = 4𝑚𝑚 (stitch row spacing) and 𝑆𝐿 = 3𝑚𝑚 (stitch length) for PWC; and
𝑆𝑅 = 𝑆𝐿 = 8𝑚𝑚 for PWF. These parameters were chosen in order to achieve
an equivalent and near optimum value of the stitch areal fraction as defined by
Eq.(3.1), for flax yarn and cotton thread based on their cross-section area given
in Table 4.1. Details concerning the composites’ fiber preform are presented in
Table 6.1. The laminate thicknesses were highly consistent, measuring 4±0.10
mm with a coefficient of variation of less than 2% for each specimen. Test plates
of 100 mm by 150 mm were cut via water-jet and oven dried immediately at 60℃
for at least 24 hours before the impact tests.
Table 6.1. The composite lay-up, notation and stitch parameters used for the manufactured
flax fiber laminates for the drop weight impact test.
Areal density Stitch Areal

Flax Lamina Laminate Stitch 𝑽𝒇
of lamina Layup Fraction
preform nomenclature material (%)
[g/m2] x10-2
PW0 [0]4 - 0
4×4Plain
PWC 500 [0]4 Cotton 0.92 31±2
Weave
PWF [0]4 Flax 1.03
Unidirectional UD0 110 [0/90]4s - 0 40±2
The impact force-time history was obtained from a force sensor mounted on the
impactor, and the contact velocity was measured from the images recorded by
a high-speed camera filming at 15000 frame/second (see Section 3.10). After the
impact test, all the specimens were visually checked for any external damage
on both impacted and back surfaces. The damage type, as well as length of the
cracks, were recorded for all the specimens.
The following sections shall present the impact test study results, starting with
the post-impact visual inspection the test pieces in Section 6.3 to first understand
the different fracture locations and behavior of natural fiber composites,
followed by the discussion on the force-time and force-displacement results in
Sections 6.4 and 6.5 respectively. Lastly, the energy absorption and impact
fracture toughness will be covered in Section 6.6.

Chapter 6 141
Table 6.2. Information of Impact test and specimen’s thickness.
Impact Impact velocity Average thickness Specific impact

sample
Energy (J) (m/s) (mm) energy† (J/mm)
PW0 4.01 0.05 4.89 0.01

PWC 3.92 0.08 5.00 0.03
19.6 1.98
PWF 3.99 0.04 4.91 0.01
UD0 3.97 0.03 4.94 0.01
PW0 4.06 0.06 10.99 0.04
PWC 4.01 0.04 11.12 0.02
44.6 2.98
PWF 3.98 0.10 11.21 0.07
UD0 3.99 0.10 11.18 0.07
† Represents the ratio of impact energy to specimen thickness.
6.3. Visual inspection of post-impact specimens

Impact resistance is defined as the ability of a material to resist permanent
changes (i.e. damage) due to a loading event beyond the design load. In this
study, the impacted specimens are visually inspected to identify the external and
visible damages, so as to understand the types and positions of the cracks that
had developed.
6.3.1. Non-perforation impact test (19.6J)
Figure 6.1 shows both impact and bottom face of woven and cross-ply flax
specimens subjected to 19.6J impact energy. It was observed that for all woven
flax fiber laminates (PW0, PWC, and PWF), a cross-shaped crack formation
had developed along the weft and warp directions at both the impact and the
back surfaces of the specimens. The intersection of the longitudinal and
transverse cracks corresponded to the impact location. This suggests that natural
fiber breakage was predominant, unlike the stronger synthetic (carbon or glass)
fibers which could generally resist fractures at this energy level and exhibit
mainly matrix failures [192,193].
Comparison between the unstitched and stitched specimens showed that the
fracture mechanisms were more or less identical. However, crack lengths in
both directions were longer for the stitched specimens. The overall crack length
was measured to be 27±2% (PWC) and 41±2% (PWF) longer for cotton and
flax stitched laminates, respectively. This could be attributed to the higher
incidence of defects such as in-plane fiber damage and resin-rich spots caused
by stitching which facilitates the creation and propagation of intralaminar cracks.
There are also some effects arising from the stitch fiber dimension, which will
be discussed in Section 6.6.
For the cross-ply laminate (UD0), a combination of matrix failure (transverse
crack) and fiber breakage (longitudinal crack) formed a cross-shaped damage at
the back surface. Matrix dominated cracks along the top-ply fiber orientation
with sub-surface delamination were observed on the impact face of the
specimens. The visible peanut-shape delamination zone around the locus of the
impact was only observed for the UD0. This type of delamination damage is
usually observed in impacted synthetic fiber composites with cross-ply lay-up,
attributing to the interlaminar shear stress distribution in 0°/90° interface
produced by transverse loading of the laminate [194]. It was presented earlier
in Chapter 4.6 that the interlaminar fracture toughness of the UD laminate is
generally much lower than the woven laminates. Therefore, it is conceivable
that the cross-ply laminates should be more vulnerable to delamination under
transverse loading due lower fracture resistance. The effects of the delamination
Chapter 6 143
will be discussed more under in Section 6.4 together with the impact force
histories.
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Delamination
Transvers crack
Longitudinal crack
Warp 90°
Matrix failure
Weft 0°
PW0 – Impact face PWC – Impact face PWF – Impact face UD0 – Impact face
Fiber failure
90°
Matrix failure
0°
PW0 – Back face PWC – Back face PWF – Back face UD0 – Back face
Figure 6.1. Damage of 19.6J impact (non-perforation) on both faces of (a) unstitched woven –
PW0, (b) cotton stitched woven – PWC and (c) flax stitched woven – PWF, (d) unstitched
cross-ply – UD0.
6.3.2. Perforation impact test (44.6J)
The perforated impact specimens tested at 44.6J are shown in Figure 6.2. The
shape and size of the damage to the woven laminates were fairly similar, with
no distinct differences between the unstitched and stitched woven laminates
found. The damage appeared to have been formed by matrix and fiber fractures
that emanated from the locus of impact along the principal fiber directions with
very little delamination detected, followed by flexural bending failures of the
quadrants created. On the other hand, the impact face of the cross-ply laminate
(UD0) shows visible delamination besides fiber and matrix failures. Quadrant
bending failures and some minor delamination adjacent to the crack lines and
in the sub-surface plies was also observed from the bottom face. This meant that
the impact energy was dissipated by both major crack formation and
delamination in cross-ply architectures.
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Warp 90º 90º 90° 90º
Weft 0°
0º 0º 0º
PW0 – Impact face PWC – Impact face PWF – Impact face UD0 – Impact face
Warp
Weft
PW0 – Back face PWC – Back face PWF – Back face UD0 – Back face
Figure 6.2. Damage of 44.6J impact (non-perforation) on both faces of (a) unstitched woven –
PW0, (b) cotton stitched woven – PWC and (c) flax stitched woven – PWF, (d) unstitched
cross-ply – UD0.
6.4. Impact force- time history

The force-time history of the 19.6J and 44.6J impact tests are shown in
Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.4, respectively. The force-time responses were
smoothed using fast Fourier transform (FFT) with cut off frequency of 0.01 Hz.
Chapter 6 145
This frequency was chosen to filter the force oscillation introduced by the
natural frequency of the impactor and the test apparatus.
(a) (b)
3500 3500
PW0-#1 UD0-#1
3000 3000
PW0-#2 UD0-#2
2500 PW0-#3 2500
UD0-#3
Force (N)
2000 2000
Force (N)
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (ms) Time (ms)
(c) (d)
3500 3500
PWC-#1 PWF-#1
3000 3000 PWF-#2
PWC-#2
PWC-#3 PWF-#3
2500 2500
Force (N)
Force (N)
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (ms) Time (ms)
Figure 6.3. Impact force-time histories of 19.6 J (non-perforation) for (a) unstitched woven –
PW0, (b) unstitched cross-ply – UD0, (c) cotton stitched woven – PWC and (d) flax stitched
woven – PWF.
(a) (b)
3500 3500
PW0-#1
UD0-#1
3000 PW0-#2 3000
UD0-#2
PW0-#3
2500 2500 UD0-#3
Force (N)
Force (N)
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (ms) Time (ms)
(c) (d)
3500 3500
PWC-#1 PWF-#1
3000 PWC-#2 3000 PWF-#2
PWC-#3 PWF-#3
2500 2500
Force (N)
Force (N)
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (ms) Time (ms)
Figure 6.4. Impact force-time histories of 44.6 J (perforation) for (a) unstitched woven – PW0,
(b) unstitched cross-ply – UD0, (c) cotton stitched woven – PWC and (d) flax stitched woven
– PWF.
The force-time histories for all types of laminates were highly consistent, and
the coefficient of variation of the impact force measurements were less than 5%.
Similar consistency was previously observed for the damage resistance of
specimens in terms of crack lengths and damage pattern. Therefore, although
large variations generally exist in the properties of natural fibers, consistent
composite properties can be achieved with thorough impregnation of fiber
preforms and a high-quality fabrication process.
It can be seen that both the stitched laminates (PWC and PWF) yielded a lower
force values compared to unstitched laminates. Among all the laminates, the
Chapter 6 147
cross-ply laminate (UD0) owns the highest force values. Moreover, the contact
duration in the non-perforation test was longer for both the stitched laminates,
indicating a larger damage development in the laminates. This duration was the
least for the UD0.
Some differences were also observed between the impact response of the woven
and the cross-ply laminates, which may be influenced by their impact fracture
mechanisms. The typical force-time history of woven and UD cross-ply flax
fiber laminates under drop-weight impact are shown in Figure 6.5a and b,
respectively. In the elastic region, the impact force increases linearly until it
reaches a characteristic force P1 at which a change in stiffness occurs due to
damage initiation. The value of P1 is therefore regarded as an indicator of the
laminate’s ability to resist damage initiation [81]. The values of P1 for the
composites studied are given in Table 6.3. It was found that the impact damage
initiation force (P1) for the stitched laminates at 19.6J was lowered by about 10%
due to weakening of the primary woven structure by stitch defects, such as resin
pockets and in-plane fiber distortion, which elevates the stress concentration
around stitch loops. Increasing the impact energy to 44.6J led to a slight increase
in the damage initiation force due to strain rate dependency [195]. As the
unstitched primary structure completely failed at 44.6J with full perforation by
the impactor, the structural weakening contributed by stitch defects became
relatively insignificant, and therefore the measured values of P1 were almost
identical for both the unstitched and stitched laminates.

(a) (b)
3000 3500
Woven lamintes Cross-ply laminates
2500
PMax 3000 PMax
P1
P1 2500
2000
Force (N)
Force (N)
2000
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (ms) Time (ms)
Figure 6.5. Typical representative curve of the force-time responses for (a) woven flax
laminates, (b) cross-ply flax laminate.
Beyond P1, the behavior of the impact force can be attributed to the damage
development within the laminate. It is seen from Figure 6.5 that there is an
apparent difference between the force response of woven and cross-ply
laminates, where a drop in the force right after P1 followed by a short period of
force perturbation was observed in the latter. This can be related to the
propagation of delamination cracks observed in the cross-ply laminate
(Figure 6.1), whereas there is no evidence of delamination in the woven
laminates under impact loading, further verified in Figure 6.6. It is noteworthy
that the cross-ply laminate’s force-time response in Figure 6.5b resembles those
of the conventional composites [129] where delamination is a dominant failure
mode under transverse impact load. The general response of conventional
composites subjected to low-velocity impact was discussed in Chapter 2.4.
It was shown in Chapter 4.6 that the delamination resistance of the woven flax
composite is noticeably higher than the UD flax composites [180]. The high
interlaminar toughness and relatively low in-plane strength of the woven flax
Chapter 6 149
fiber lamina can be a reason for having in-plane fiber dominated fractures prior
to the interlaminar damage development (delamination), as illustrated
schematically in Figure 6.7. In the cross-ply laminate, delamination led to a
rapid decrease in the force by reducing the bending stiffness of the laminate.
The force perturbation after P1 implies the energy dissipation by propagation of
the in-plane damages.
A small reloading to a maximum force of Pmax also happens in both the woven
and cross-ply because of strain rate dependency as there exist a sufficient
potential energy stored in the impactor [129]. The maximum impact force
values (Pmax) of the cross-ply laminates are higher than the (unstitched and
stitched) woven laminates (Table 6.3), suggesting that the unstitched UD cross-
ply fiber orientation offers the highest load resistance against impact damage
propagation for laminates of similar thicknesses. This can be largely attributed
to the more compact packing of cross-ply UD fibers within the laminate, which
resulted in higher fiber volume fraction ( 𝑉𝑓 = 0.4 for UD0 laminate) and
therefore higher tensile stiffness and strength over the lower 𝑉𝑓 woven
laminates [8].
For the woven composites which are all of similar 𝑉𝑓 (= 0.3), the stitched
specimens (regardless of the stitching fiber) always led slightly lower values of
Pmax. It has been well documented that stitching could disrupt the in-plane fiber
alignment and increase the matrix-rich regions between the woven fiber tows
[131]. Although stitch defects are expected to be less detrimental in natural fiber
composites due to the lower fiber strengths and higher discrepancy in the fiber
properties [180], their higher incidence will still facilitate crack formation and
damage propagation at lower values of force under transverse impact loading.
This can also explain why the principal axis cracks are longer in the stitched
laminates (Figure 6.1a-c).
Unstitched Woven (Impact Face)
❶❷ ❸❹ ❺
❶ ❷ ❸ ❹ ❺
Figure 6.6. Through-thickness inspection of the impacted woven laminates by the cross-
sectional microscopy.
Chapter 6 151
σC
σT
Figure 6.7. Schematic view of a woven flax composite under impact loading in which the
failure in the fiber layers due to tensile (𝜎𝑇 ) or compressive (𝜎𝐶 ) stress happens prior to a
failure in resin-rich inter-ply layers due to shear stress (τ).
The similarity in impact forces at the two energies is attributed to the low
strength of the flax fiber reinforcements, resulting in fiber fracture being the
dominant failure mode. As can be seen from Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.6, the main
fracture travels pretty much straight through the thickness of the panel,
dominated by matrix and fiber fractures. Once the impact force reaches P1, the
impact energy starts to be dissipated by the damage mechanisms within the
composite, preventing a substantial increase in the impact force. This is one of
the main differences in characteristics between the impact fractures of natural
fiber composites and conventional glass or carbon fiber composites where in the
latter, delamination is the dominant failure mode [129]. The unbroken fibers in
the conventional composites would provide an elastic strain response to higher
impact loads.
6.5. Impact force-displacement response

The impactor force against displacement curves of the both impact energies for
all the specimens are illustrated in Figure 6.8 and Figure 6.9. The consistency
observed in the force-time histories and impact damages are also clearly evident
in the force-displacement responses. The consistency in these results indicates
that with the right understanding of its failure mechanisms, the behavior of flax
composites under impact may be predicted by numerical modeling to be used
in design and development pursuits. This was shown to be true, and the model
developed for flax laminates is presented Chapter 7.
(a) (b)
3500 3500
PW0-#1 UD0-#1
3000 PW0-#2 3000 UD0-#2
PW0-#3 UD0-#3
2500 2500
Force (N)
2000 Force (N) 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(c) (d)
3500 3500
PWC-#1 PWF-#1
PWC-#2 PWF-#2
3000 3000
PWC-#3 PWF-#3
2500 2500
Force (N)
Force (N)
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure 6.8. Impact force-displacement response of 19.6 J for (a) unstitched woven – PW0, (b)
unstitched cross-ply – UD0, (c) cotton stitched woven – PWC and (d) flax stitched woven –
PWF.
Chapter 6 153
(a) (b)
3500 3500
PW0-#1
UD0-#1
3000 PW0-#2 3000
PW0-#3 UD0-#2
UD0-#3
2500 2500
Force (N)
Force (N)
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(c) (d)
3500 3500
PWC-#1 PWF-#1
3000 PWC-#2 3000 PWF-#2
PWC-#3 PWF-#3
2500 2500
Force (N)
Force (N)
2000 2000
1500 1500
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 6.9. Impact force-displacement response of 44.6 J for (a) unstitched woven – PW0, (b)
unstitched cross-ply – UD0, (c) cotton stitched woven – PWC and (d) flax stitched woven –
PWF.
For cross-specimen analysis, representative data from the impact tests of the
four composites are plotted together in Figure 6.10a and b. As can be seen, the
force-displacement curves for non-perforation impact are generally divided into
three zones of A, B, and C, as shown in Figure 6.10a [10]. Zone A represents
the elastic response of the specimen until the force has built up to the damage
initiation level. In zone B, the damage is initiated and continues to develop as
the impactor presses further into the plate until it ran out of energy and stopped
(motion reversal point). The force perturbations in this zone are associated with
the formation of fiber and matrix damages within plies, i.e. damage propagation.
Generally, a longer zone B is an indication of more damage development within

the laminate and consequently larger damage zone. Finally, zone C (in the case
of non-perforation impact) is characterized by the force unloading part of the
test where the impactor rebounds with the help of stored elastic energy from the
plate until it loses contact with the specimen. The residual displacement at the
end of zone C indicates the permanent depression of the plate. For high energy
impact (perforation test) in Figure 6.10b, zone C is replaced by a rapid force
drop without strain recovery due to the full penetration of the impactor.
In the non-perforation impact tests shown in Figure 6.10a, the maximum
deflection (at the end of zone B) is almost 25-30% higher for the stitched
laminates than the unstitched PW0 and UD0 composites. This is despite the
observations of the bending stiffness at the elastic region (zone A) being almost
identical for all specimens. This could be associated with the larger damage size
(longer cracks) generated in the stitched laminates.
Increasing the impact energy to 44.6J led to laminate perforation and the
absence of impactor rebound in zone C. In this case, stitching appears to have
insignificant effect, and perforation occurred at nearly the same deflection for
the both unstitched and stitched laminates, in Figure 6.10b.

Chapter 6 155
(a)
3500
PW0
PWC
B
3000 PWF
UD0
2500
2000
Force (N)
1500 A
1000
C
500
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Displacement (mm)
(b)
3500
PW0
3000 B PWC
PWF
UD0
2500
Force (N)
2000
1500
A
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement (mm)
Figure 6.10. Different zones of impact force-displacement response for all the flax laminates
subjected to (a) 19.6J and (b) 44.6J impact energy.
6.6. Energy absorption and impact fracture toughness

The energy absorbed by the specimen with time was determined by calculating
the area under the force-displacement curve. This value of absorbed energy
refers to the amount of energy transferred to the specimen consisting of the
recoverable strain energy before the rebound, and the non-recoverable energy
losses dissipated by the specimen through damage formation, friction, heat, and
sound. The energy absorption curves versus time for both 19.6J and 44.6J
impact energies tests are given in Figure 6.11.
50
Perforation impact 44.6 J

45
40
35
30
Energy (J)
25
Non-perforation impact 19.6 J
20
15 EAbsorbed
10
5
PW0 PWC PWF UD0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (ms)
Figure 6.11. Energy absorption curves under 19.6J and 44.6J impact energies.
At the non-perforation impact level (19.6J), the turning point of the energy
absorption curves at the maxima represents the moment that the impactor had
stopped and all energy of the impactor has been completely transferred to the
specimen. Thereafter, the elastic strain energy stored in the specimen is returned
to the impactor, causing it to rebound till separation and the energy curve at this
stage is characterized by a decreasing rate of decline. The final energy value
indicates the amount of energy dissipated (absorbed) by specimen largely
through damage development within the composite. It is worth mentioning that

Chapter 6 157
the energy of free vibration of the specimen is very small and is assumed to be
negligible due to the quasi-static condition of the low-velocity impact test
[129,196]. However, at the perforation impact level (44.6J), the energy of the
impactor is high enough to break through the specimen. Therefore, there is no
decline observed in energy absorption curve and most of the absorbed energy is
dissipated by the specimen through damage crack propagation and some
vibrational kinetic energy in the test piece. Moreover, as the impactor is still
traveling with unconverted potential energy within it at the moment of full
impactor penetration, the maximum energy received by the specimens will
always be less than the total energy of the impactor (i.e. 44.6J). This maximum
energy represents the impact perforation threshold energy of the laminates.
Having a lower perforation threshold means that the composite laminate
displays less resistance against the penetration of an impactor [87].
The ratio of the absorbed energy per total impact energy (Eabsorbed/Eimpact ,
expressed in percentage) for both non-perforation and perforation impact tests
are reported in Table 6.3. The variability in this ratio for the different types of
composite systems is due to the effects of stitch parameters, in-plane fiber
preform architectures, the fiber volume fraction as well as the variation in
laminate thickness. These inevitably influence the damage development and
energy absorption under impact conditions. At the non-perforation impact level
(19.6J), the ratio of Eabsorbed/Eimpact for the stitched woven composites were about
12-18% higher than that of the unstitched woven laminates, corresponding to
the longer crack lengths observed in the stitched woven laminates. This is
mainly because of the defects caused by stitching which lead to easy formation
and development of damages in the stitched composites, as discussed in
Section 6.4. In the case of full perforation impact, the flax yarn stitched
laminates (PWF) and the cross-ply laminates (UD0) exhibited the lowest and
highest perforation thresholds, respectively. The higher impact resistance of the
cross-ply laminates (UD0) compared to the woven laminates can be attributed
to their higher fiber volume fraction ( 𝑉𝑓 = 0.4 ) [93,99], whereas the low
perforation resistance of the flax yarn stitched laminates is associated with the
larger defects induced by thicker yarn (flax) stitching.
Unlike conventional glass or carbon fiber reinforced composites where low
impact energy cracking tends to propagate through the matrix-rich inter-ply
planes between the fiber layers, the strengths of the woven fiber ply and matrix
are rather similar ([190,197]) which led to both fiber breakage and matrix
cracking mechanisms to dominate in the transverse impact failure of natural
fiber composite laminates. Post-impact SEM imaging of the fracture surfaces in
Figure 6.12a to d showed that fiber-matrix debonding, fiber fracture, fiber pull
out, and generally brittle fracture of the matrix with low-to-moderate amounts
of matrix yielding in some locations were found to be the major mechanisms
accountable for dissipation of the impact energy.

Chapter 6 159
(a) (b)
A B A
A − Fiber fracture (warp fibers) B − Fiber/matrix debonding (weft fibers) C − Matrix A − Fiber bundle fracture
(c) (d)
B
A
B
A − Fiber fracture B − River marking C − Cleavage marking D −Fiber pulled out A −Matrix crack B − Cleavage marking
Figure 6.12. Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) of fracture surfaces of the woven flax fiber
laminate under transverse impact; (a) warp fiber fracture and weft fiber/matrix debonding at
the fracture surface, (b) fiber bundle fracture, (c) and (d) river marking, cleavage marking and
cracking of matrix.
To assess the effect of stitching on damage development in the woven
composite under transverse non-perforation impact load, two characteristic
fracture parameters were used. Both of these parameters are associated with the
fiber ply (in-plane) damages since very little interlaminar failure was observed
within the woven flax fiber composites (Figure 6.6). Firstly, the values of P1
were normalized by dividing by the thickness cubed of plates, P1 /t 3, in order to
eliminate the effect of thickness variation on elastic bending stiffness. Secondly,
the ratio of absorbed energy of impact (Eabsorbed ) to the total crack surfaces
created during impact, which represents the fracture toughness of composite
under impact, was determined by:
𝐸𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑒𝑑
𝐺𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 =
𝐿×𝑡 (6.1)
where 𝐿 is the total crack length of the transverse and longitudinal through-
thickness fractures observed, based on the average of the crack length measured
from the impact face and back surface of specimens (as seen from Figure 6.1)
and 𝑡 is the specimen thickness (Table 6.2). The crack surface area (L × t) was
approximated from the multiplication of the total crack length by the specimen
thickness since very little evidence of interlaminar cracking was found (see
Figure 6.6). This applies to the un/stitched woven composites only. The area
contribution from the fracture surface roughness was taken to be negligible in
this case.
The normalized parameters for unstitched and stitched laminates are shown in
Figure 6.13. It was observed that both the normalized damage initiation load
(𝑃1 /𝑡 3) and the impact fracture toughness values (𝐺𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 ) are about 6% and
16% lower for the flax yarn stitched laminates, respectively. On the other hand,
the results of the cotton thread stitched laminates were lower but not statistically
different from the unstitched woven laminates.
This difference may be related to the cross-sectional area of the stitch, where
the flax yarn is six-times bigger than cotton thread as discussed in Chapter 4
[180]. Similar to stitched synthetic fiber composites [129], stitches in natural
fiber composites would also perform as a crack initiator within the composites.
Chapter 6 161
Since the stitch areal fraction is equivalent for both stitched laminates, the
thicker stitches (i.e. flax yarn) appeared to lead to greater decline in the impact
fracture toughness of the laminates. In other words, the stitch-induced defects
associated with the dimension of stitches, such as in-plane reinforcing fiber
distortion and resin-rich pockets, has a direct influence over the impact damage
resistance of stitched natural fiber composites.
40 34
32.8 33
EAbsorbed /Damage area (KJ/m2)
32.2
32
P1 /t3 (N/mm3)
35
31
30.5
31.7
31.1 30
30
29
26.7 28
25 27
PW0 PWC PWF
Woven flax fiber laminate
Figure 6.13. Effect of stitch fiber on damage initiation load and fracture toughness under
impact load.
Table 6.3. Summary of impact test results.
Impact Energy P1 Pmax P1/t3 Eabsorbed Eabsorbed/E impact

Sample
(J) (N) (N) (N/mm3) (J) (%)
PW0 2112 ±11 2534 ±29 32.8 ±0.7 13.4 ±0.3 68.2 ±1.5
PWC 1939 ±19 2105 ±12 32.2 ±0.6 17.0 ±0.1 86.5 ±0.5
19.6
PWF 1938 ±12 2142 ±46 30.5 ±0.6 15.8 ±0.1 80.4 ±0.5
UD0 2515 ±32 2935 ±33 40.2 ±0.8 14.7 ±0.1 75.1 ±0.5
PW0 2266 ±48 2661 ±25 33.9 ±0.7 43.1 ±0.4 96.7 ±0.9
PWC 2105 ±64 2701 ±33 32.6 ±0.7 43.2 ±0.3 96.8 ±0.8
44.6
PWF 2093 ±26 2339 ±25 33.2 ±0.7 39.6 ±0.9 88.7 ±2.0
UD0 2618 ±56 3159 ±52 41.2 ±0.8 44.2 ±0.2 99.2 ±0.5
6.7. Conclusion
An experimental investigation of natural fiber stitching on the low-velocity
impact response of continuous flax/epoxy composite laminates has been
presented in this chapter. The flax and cotton stitched woven composites
showed consistent and similar impact response despite differences in their stitch
fiber type and thickness. Fiber fracture was prevalent, hence the impact damage
was mainly in the form of a cross-shaped crack (along the weft and warp
directions) that is visible on both top/bottom surfaces, with very little
delamination. In all samples, stitching was detrimental to the impact resistance
of the composites. The normalized initiation force (P1 /t 3) for stitched woven
flax laminates were lower than the unstitched ones, particularly when flax yarn
stitches were used. This was attributed to the lower crack resistance of the resin-
rich regions that reside between the stitch loops. Flax yarn stitching led to a
reduction of the impact fracture toughness of the woven flax fiber laminate by
almost 16%, while this reduction for the cotton stitching was only 5%.
Chapter 6 163
Therefore, the flax yarn stitching of woven flax laminate appeared to be more
detrimental to the structural performance of the composite under low-velocity
impact. At higher impact energies where the laminates were fully perforated,
the efficiency of absorbed energy over impact energy all exceeded 90%, except
for the flax yarn stitched composite which had the worst performance. Similar
degrees of perimeter damage joining the transverse and longitudinal crack tips
were observed due to bending failures of the quadrantal sections. Finally, for
the unstitched panels, unidirectional cross-ply fiber preform construction was
found to provide greater impact resistance than the stacked woven fiber preform.
164 Numerical analysis of low-velocity impact on woven flax/epoxy composite laminate
Chapter 7
Numerical analysis of low-velocity impact
on woven flax/epoxy composite laminate
7.1. Introduction
In this chapter, a finite element (FE) modeling of low-velocity impact onto
woven flax fiber composite is presented to study the material behavior and
damage mechanisms for the impact energies experimentally studied in previous
chapters. A continuum damage mechanics (CDM) based approach is applied to
model the in-plane fiber and matrix damage (intralaminar failure) using Abaqus
6.11/Explicit package with a built-in VUMAT, and delamination (interlaminar
failure) is modeled using cohesive elements with a bilinear cohesive law. The
model is validated with the experimental results for both the non-perforation
and perforation impact cases. Finally, the intralaminar and interlaminar damage
evolution and energy absorption mechanisms of the woven flax fiber composite
under impact loading are discussed in detail.

Chapter 7 165
7.2. Modeling strategy

A 3D finite element model is created to analyse the unstitched woven flax fiber
composite with the lay-up of [0]4 subjected to low-velocity impact at two
different energies. The drop weight impact test is simulated in Abaqus
6.11/Explicit according to the experimental set up presented in Section 3.10. A
built-in VUMAT code is used to model the intralaminar damage of the woven
composite and the interlaminar damage is modeled using cohesive elements.
The damage model is based on the smeared crack approach with the maximum
stress failure criterion and elastic damage in the fiber directions and a nonlinear
elastic-plastic damage model for in-plane shear response. The experimental
results of impact onto the woven flax fiber composite studied in Chapter 6 are
used to validate the model. Material properties used in this model are
The 3D model of the composite is 75mm in width, 125mm in length and
4.11mm thick, with the lay-up of [0]4, which is used to capture the impact
damage of the unsupported central region of the test specimen, as shown in
Figure 7.1.
100 mm
(a)
75 mm
125 mm
150 mm
Modeled region
Actual Specimen
Supported region
(b)
Flax Fabric ply
Ply No. 1
Coh. No. 1 Thickness= 1.02 mm
Ply No. 2
Coh. No. 2
Ply No. 3 Cohesive layer
Coh. No. 3
Ply No. 4 Thickness= 0.01 mm
Figure 7.1. Schematic of (a) the model dimension, and (b) the lay-up used.
The 3D FE model used to analyse low-velocity impact test of the unstitched
woven flax fiber composite is shown in Figure 7.2. The boundary conditions are
introduced by limiting the rotations and the displacement at edges of the plate.
Each of the fabric plies is modeled using quadrilateral continuum shell elements
(SC8R). The interaction between the woven flax fiber plies is modeled using a
single layer of 3D cohesive elements (COH3D8) with a thickness of 0.01 mm.
The nodes of both faces of the cohesive elements are tied to neighboring
structural elements. The impactor is modeled by a hemispherical rigid surface
(R3D3) with a point mass of 9.99 kg, and an initial velocity of 1.893 m/s and
2.926 m/s according to the experimental test data for non-perforation and
perforation impact cases, respectively.

Chapter 7 167
Ply 1
Ply 2
Ply 3
Ply 4
A Woven flax fiber composite test specimen; B Rigid impactor
Figure 7.2. 3D finite element model of the drop-weight impact test.
The model was meshed with 0.75 mm by 0.75 mm element size and two
elements with a thickness of 0.51 mm were used through-the-thickness of each
fabric ply. The element size was determined based on the rule proposed by
Harper [198] for the cohesive zone length to ensure that the element is small
enough to capture the stress gradient at the wake of crack tips. According to this
method, the cohesive element size must be smaller than one-third of the
predicted characteristic length for the cohesive zone. The cohesive zone length
is generally smaller under Mode I loading condition [182]. Therefore, in this
study, the mesh size is chosen based on the cohesive zone length for Mode I
loading. Besides, a mesh convergence study is conducted with 3 different
meshes, 0.75 mm, 0.60 mm, 0.5mm to ensure the mesh-independency of results.
The interaction between the impactor and plate is simulated as a hard contact
using the Abaqus global contact algorithm with a frictionless tangential
behavior. In order to overcome the hourglass issue, the enhanced strain based
method available in Abaqus mesh control is employed. The elements were set
to be deleted when either the damage parameter in fiber directions, 𝑑1 or 𝑑2
<0.99 was satisfied.
7.3. Material model

The continuum damage model proposed by Johnson [158] is considered for
modeling the material behavior of the plain woven flax fiber composite. The
model is based on the following simplifying assumption:
 The reinforcing fibers are continuous and aligned. In other words, the
effect of complex microstructures produced by the interlacing and
undulation of flax fiber tows are neglected. Therefore, the principle
directions of the material coordinate system are representing the fiber
directions.
 The warp and weft fibers are orthogonal and aligned with the principle
directions of the material coordinate system (plain weave).
 The material response in the fiber directions is linear.
 Fiber and matrix damage modes are decoupled. Fiber damages are only
under tension/compression while matrix damage occurs in shear.
 Fiber properties may be different in tension and compression.
 Model sustains the damage parameters unchanged in unloading (non-
healing). It is only changed if higher damage load is re-applied.
 Plastic strains of the woven composite are only associated with (in-plane)
matrix shear response.

Chapter 7 169
7.3.1. Elastic behavior of woven laminate
The woven fabric reinforced composite ply is modeled as a homogeneous
orthotropic elastic material in which the damage prior to ultimate failure can be
captured by progressive stiffness degradation. As mentioned above, it is
assumed that the warp and weft fibers are orthogonal and aligned with the
principle axis of local coordinate system. Figure 7.3 illustrates a schematic of
2D woven fabric reinforcement and corresponding local material directions
used in the constitutive model.
Weft fibers
2
Warp fibers
Figure 7.3. Schematic of 2D woven fabric reinforcement and the local coordinate system.
A continuum damage mechanics (CDM) approach is used to model the in-plane
fiber and matrix damage (intralaminar failure) in which the elastic properties of
the ply are degraded by damage variables governing by damage evolution
equations [158]. The general constitutive law of elastic orthotropic material for
plane stress is defined by Eq.(7.1)
𝝐 = 𝑺𝝈
(7.1)
where 𝝐 = (𝜖11 , 𝜖22 , 2𝜖12 )𝑇 and 𝝈 = (𝜎11 , 𝜎22 , 𝜎12 )𝑇 are the in-plane strain
and stress component of composite ply with a symmetry material (fiber)
directions of 1 and 2. The elastic compliance matrix of 𝑺 is given by
1 −𝑣12
0
𝐸1 (1 − 𝑑1 ) 𝐸1
−𝑣21 1
𝑆= 0
𝐸2 𝐸2 (1 − 𝑑2 )
1
0 0
[ 2𝐺12 (1 − 𝑑12 )]
(7.2)
where the elastic constants 𝐸1 and 𝐸2 are the Young’s modulus in the directions
of 1 and 2, 𝐺12 is the in-plane shear modulus and 𝑣12 is the in-plane Poisson’s
ratio. Scalar variables of 0 ≤ 𝑑𝑖 ≤ 1 are the damage parameters and represent
the coefficient of reduction in the elastic modulus of material after micro-
damage initiation. Here, 𝑑1 and 𝑑2 are the fiber damage parameter along the
directions of 1 and 2, respectively, and 𝑑12 is associated with the in-plane shear
damage of matrix. In the current model, for reason of simplicity, there is no
independent damage variable to degrade the Poisson’s ration. Therefore, it can
be shown through the uniaxial stress field that 𝑣12 and 𝑣21 are reduced by the
factor of (1 − 𝑑1 ) and (1 − 𝑑2 ), respectively [158].
In order to model the damage evolution of 2D fabric reinforcement, it is
assumed that in the both fiber direction, fiber failure is dominant under tension
and compression, and matrix failure is dominant under in-plane shear. It is also
assumed that fiber and shear damage modes (under normal and shear stresses)
are decoupled. These simplifying assumptions for the elastic damage mechanics
of fabric composite plies were discussed in detailed by Johnson [158].

Chapter 7 171
7.3.2. Fiber failure
The maximum longitudinal stress failure criterion is used to determine fiber
failure in both principle direction (𝛼 = 1,2)
𝑋𝑓−𝛼 < 𝜎̃𝛼 < 𝑋𝑓+𝛼

(7.3)
where 𝑋𝑓+𝛼 and 𝑋𝑓−𝛼 are the ultimate tensile and compressive strength of the
composite in the fiber directions, respectively. The damage activation functions,
𝐹𝛼 , is used to define the elastic domain at any given time as
𝐹𝛼 = 𝜙𝛼 − 𝑟𝛼 ≤ 0
(7.4)
𝜎
̃
where 𝜙𝛼 = |𝑋𝛼 | defines the failure criteria in which 𝑋𝛼 = 𝑋𝑓+𝛼 or 𝑋𝛼 = 𝑋𝑓+𝛼 ,
𝛼
and 𝑟𝛼 is the damage thresholds (𝛼 = 1,2), which are assumed to comply the
Kuhn-Tucker complementary conditions as
𝐹𝛼 ≤ 0, 𝑟𝛼̇ ≥ 0, 𝑟𝛼̇ 𝐹𝛼 = 0
(7.5)
and the consistency condition of 𝑟𝛼̇ 𝐹𝛼̇ = 0 . The evolution of the damage
variables 𝑑1 and 𝑑2 are monotonic increasing and based on the assumption that
the total energy needed to fail an element has to be equal to the fracture energy
per unit area under uniaxial tensile or compressive loading. The energy of
failing an element is determined from the area under the stress-strain curve,
multiplied by the characteristic length of the element as
∞
∫ 𝜎𝛼 𝑑(𝐿𝑐 𝜀𝛼 ) = 𝐺𝑓𝛼
0
(7.6)
where 𝐺𝑓𝛼 (𝛼 = ±1, ±2) is the tensile or compressive fracture toughness of the
composite material in the principle fiber directions (or in-plane fracture
toughness), and 𝐿𝑐 is the characteristic length of the element which is defined
as the square root of the area of a continuum shell element in Abaqus [185].
Here, the values of the intralaminar fracture toughness used (Table 7.1) are
estimated from the compact tension test results of the woven flax fiber
composites (with tensile strength and stiffness of 88.39 MPa and 6.88 GPa,
respectively) carried out by Liu et al. [9].
7.3.3. Matrix failure
Deformations of the fabric composite plies under in-plane shear are controlled
by matrix elastic response, plasticity and matrix cracking. Thus, matrix
dominated failure is the main failure mechanism of fabric composite plies under
in-plane shear. In order to model the shear response, the total shear strain in the
𝑒𝑙 𝑝𝑙
ply, 𝜀12 , is split into the sum of elastic, 𝜀12 , and plastic strain, 𝜀12 , as
𝑒𝑙 𝑝𝑙
𝜀12 = 𝜀12 + 𝜀12
(7.7)
Using the constitutive law of elastic response of material, the effective shear
stress, 𝜎̃12 , is calculated as
𝜎12 𝑒𝑙
𝜎̃12 = = 2𝐺12 𝜀12
1 − 𝑑12
(7.8)
where the elastic strain is obtained from Eq.(7.7). Assuming that only the
effective shear stress (𝜎̃12 ) leads to plastic deformation, the shear yield function
takes the form of

Chapter 7 173
𝐹12 = |𝜎̃12 | − 𝜎̃0 (𝜀̅𝑝𝑙 ) ≤ 0

(7.9)
where the hardening function of 𝜎̃0 is defined as
𝜎̃0 (𝜀̅𝑝𝑙 ) = 𝜎̃𝑦0 + 𝐶(𝜀̅𝑝𝑙 )𝐾

(7.10)
in which the hardening parameters of 𝜎̃𝑦0 , 𝐶 and 𝐾 can be obtained by a cyclic
tensile test of a fabric composite loading at 45° respect to the principle fiber
directions [158]. The shear response of the woven flax reinforced composite
tested under monotonic and cyclic loading with six load-unload cycles are given
in Figure 2. The procedure for determining the hardening parameters is given in
Appendix C.
In order to activate the shear damage, the maximum shear stress failure criterion
is used. Therefore, the elastic domain function for shear becomes
𝐹12 = 𝜙12 − 𝑟12 ≤ 0

(7.11)
𝜎
̃12
where 𝜙12 = , the criteria for the shear damage initiation is based on the
𝑆
maximum shear yielding stress of 𝑆 for matrix damage, and 𝑟12 is the (shear)
damage thresholds.
50 Monotonic loading
Cyclic loading
40
Shear stress, σ12 (MPa)
30
20
-45 ° +45 °
10 (1 − 𝑑12 )𝐺12
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Shear strain, ε12 (%)
Figure 7.4. Monotonic and cyclic shear stress-strain curves obtained from tensile tests on ±45
woven flax/epoxy laminate.
7.3.4. Delamination
Delamination or interlaminar failure of composite laminates is one of the most
critical failure modes which can deteriorate their load carrying capacity.
Transverse impact usually creates intensive interlaminar shear stress due to
bending of plate under point loading. Due to the bending stiffness mismatch,
the interlaminar shear stress increases when the laminate is thick or the
thickness of fiber plies is high. The high interlaminar shear stress leads to
delamination which generally runs in the resin rich area between the fiber plies.
In this chapter, the Abaqus cohesive element (COH3D8) with a bilinear
traction-separation law is used to model the interlaminar interface of the woven
flax composite. It is assumed that delamination occurs in the homogeneous
resin-rich region between plies and the R-curve effect is neglected. Thus, only
Chapter 7 175
the initiation value of Mode II interlaminar fracture toughness are used. The
procedure of delamination modeling is presented in Chapter 5.2.2.2. The Mode
I and II interlaminar fracture toughness of woven flax fiber composites used in
the delamination modeling were measured through DCB and End Notched
Flexure (ENF) tests.
All material properties used in the numerical simulation of woven flax fiber
composite are summarized in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1. Material properties used in numerical modeling.
Elastic properties 𝐸1 = 7.9 GPa; 𝐸2 = 9.5 GPa; 𝐺12 = 3.98 GPa; 𝑣12 = 0.26
𝑋𝑓+1 = 91MPa; 𝑋𝑓−1 = 82† MPa;
In-plane strength
𝑋𝑓+2 = 105 MPa; 𝑋𝑓−2 = 93† MPa; 𝑆 = 21 MPa
Non-linear shear properties 𝜎̃𝑦0 = 23.9 MPa; 𝐶 = 68; 𝐾 = 0.45
𝐺𝑓+1 = 4.1 KJ/m2 ; 𝐺𝑓−1 = 3.5† KJ/m2 ;
In-plane fracture toughness*
𝐺𝑓+2 = 4.7 KJ/m2 ; 𝐺𝑓−2 = 3.7 †KJ/m2
𝐺𝐼𝐶 = 3.2 KJ/m2; 𝐺𝐼𝐼𝐶 = 3.8 KJ/m2 ; 𝜂 = 1;
Interlaminar properties
σCI = 35 Mpa; σCII = 50 Mpa
† Estimated values.
∗ Values adapted from [9].
7.4. Numerical simulation results and discussion

7.4.1. Impact force response
The predicted impact force-time history of unstitched woven flax fiber
composite for non-perforation (19.6J) and perforation (44.6J) impact test are
compared with the experimental results in Figure 7.5. As can be seen, the impact
force prediction is in good agreement with the experimentally measured results,
particularly for non-perforation impact. The model is able to capture the initial
elastic response, damage initiation and progression and unloading process of the
woven flax fiber laminates with a reasonable accuracy.
In perforation impact (44.6J), the numerical force response up to peak force (𝑇2 )
fits very well with the results from the experiment, albeit with slightly more
intense force disturbances at damage initiation. After peak force (from 𝑇2 to 𝑇4)
however, the force behavior is slightly different than the experimental response.
This discrepancy can be due to the instability occurs during perforation test. It
was observed from the videos captured by the high-speed camera during impact
test that the impactor may sometimes rotate slightly by 1-1.5° due to the special
design of the drop weight apparatus which leave a small clearance in sliding
guides. Consequently, the impactor deviates slightly from the original vertical
alignment while penetrating into the plate. This, together with contact friction
effect which are neglected in the FE modeling, would also contribute to the
deviation of the ideal model set up (which is constrained to move only along the
out of plane direction) from the actual experimental measurements. The very
small rotation of the impactor during perforation impact tests is also suspected
to be related to the unsymmetrical damages on the laminates, as shown in
Figure 6.2.
Chapter 7 177
(a) (b)
3000 Exp-#1 3500 Exp-#1
T1 T2 T3 Exp-#2 T1 T2 T3 Exp-#2
Exp-#3 Exp-#3
FE simulation 3000 FE simulation
2500
2500
T4 T4
2000
2000
Force (N)
Force (N)
1500
1500
1000
1000
500
500
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (ms) Time (ms)
Figure 7.5. Impact force–time curves of numerical simulation versus experimental results for
(a) 19.6J (non-perforation) and (b) 44.6J (perforation).
Figure 7.6 compares the load-displacement curves obtained from the numerical
simulation with the experimental results for both the impact energies. In the case
of non-perforation impact, the numerical results show excellent agreement with
the experimentally measured force-displacement. The all three zone (i.e. A –
elastic response, B – damage development and C – unloading) for the non-
perforation impact discussed in Chapter 6.5, were captured with good accuracy.
The FE simulation for the perforation impact in Figure 7.6b again matches well
initially (up to 𝑇2 ) but deviated from the experimental data in the later part of
the test. It is observed that while the experimental loads drop off at 𝑇3 which
coincides with the fracture of a failing quadrant, the FEM did not predict the
quadrant failure and simulated a gradually declining load that would be
characteristic of a structure which had remained intact. This is affirmed later in
the damage evolution data presented in Section 7.4.2, Figure 7.7b, that at 𝑇3 and
𝑇4, the quadrants had remained largely intact in the FE model.

(a) (b)
3000 3500
T2 Exp-#1
T2
T1 Exp-#2
T3
3000 Exp-#3
2500 T1
T3 FE simulation
2500
2000
2000
Force (N)
Force (N)
1500
1500
1000
1000
Exp-#1
500 T4 T4
Exp-#2 500
Exp-#3
FE simulation
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Figure 7.6. Impact force–displacement curves of numerical simulation versus experimental

results for (a) 19.6J (non-perforation) and (b) 44.6J (perforation).
7.4.2. Impact damage evolution
The damage evolution of both the impact cases associated with the critical time
𝑇1 to 𝑇4 of impact event, illustrated on the force responses of Figure 7.5 and
Figure 7.6, are presented here. Figure 7.7a and b show the damage contours on
the impact and back face of the woven flax fiber laminate as well as all cohesive
interfaces at the specified time 𝑇1 to 𝑇4. Based on the force responses and the
corresponding damage contours, the damage evolution for each of the impact
cases can be described as below:
7.4.2.1. 19.6J (non-perforation)
 The interval from 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 = 0 up to 𝑇1 represents the elastic response of
the specimen under bending until the force of yielding is reached and
the initial signs of material damages are appeared at 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 ≅ 𝑇1 . The
fiber and matrix damages are first formed on the fiber plies prior to any
failure in the cohesive interface (delamination). Then, shortly after the

Chapter 7 179
in-plane damages initiation, the first sign of interface failure is appeared
on the most top cohesive interface (i.e. Coh.1) under the impact place.
 Starting from 𝑇1 , the in-plane damages develop along the fiber
directions (weft and warp) at the centerlines, forming the cross shaped
crack in the plate. At this stage, the impact force still increases at a lower
rate compared to initial elastic response, while the velocity of impactor
decrease. At 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 = 𝑇2 , the force reached to its maximum value. The
damage of cohesive interfaces also follows the in-plane damage pattern
and it is almost limited into a band with a width equivalent to the in-
plane damage width.
 From 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 = 𝑇2 to 𝑇3 , the damages still propagate, however, the
propagation rate is much lower as the majority of impact energy has
been transferred to the laminate in the form of elastic bending and
damage mechanism.
 At 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 = 𝑇3 , the impactor fully stops (motion reversal point in
Figure 7.6a) and the laminate reaches to a maximum deformation.
Damage development in the laminate stops size and the maximum
damage size is achieved is at this point.
 From 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 = 𝑇3, the unloading process is begun and the elastic energy
stored in the laminate is delivered to the impactor while no further
damage is formed in the laminate as the damage contours remain
unchanged up to 𝑇4 (end of the test).
The final damage contours on the both faces are also compared with the actual
specimens in Figure 7.7a. At the impact face, the relative errors between the
predicted and experimental length of the longitudinal and transverse fiber-
dominated cracks (as defined in Figure 6.1) are 2% and 8%, respectively. This
error at back surface is 2% for transverse crack and 16% for longitudinal crack.
The underestimated crack length in the longitudinal direction can be associated
with the fully clamped boundary conditions used in the numerical model, while
the rubber tip toggle clamp used to fix the test specimen at four corners (see
Figure 3.13) may not offer an ideal clamped boundary condition. Nevertheless,
the model has the capacity of predicting the material behavior of the woven flax
composite subjected to low-velocity impact with a satisfactory accuracy.
7.4.2.2. 44.6J (Perforation)
 The impact event up to 𝑇2 is pretty similar to what described for the
19.6J case, however, the duration is shorter obviously because of the
higher impact velocity in the 44.6J impact case. Moreover, unlike the
impact of 19.6J, fiber damage forms at the clamped edges (particularly
along the long edges) due to the higher impact load.
 From 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 = 𝑇2 to 𝑇4 both the intralaminar and interlaminar damages
propagates continuously while the impactor is moving further into the
specimens. At 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 = 𝑇3 , the damage starts to deviate from the original
pass because of the bending failures of the quadrants created. Finally, a
circular shaped damage is formed due to bending failure of the quadrants.
 At 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 = 𝑇4, the impactor passes through the plate and the damage
evolution is stopped.
The final fiber and matrix damage zone on top (Ply 1) and back (Ply 4) faces
are in good agreement with the visual damage size on the actual impacted
Chapter 7 181
specimen. As seen from Figure 7.7a and b, the damage contour of cohesive
interfaces in both the impact cases follows the in-plane damage pattern and is
almost limited into a band with a width of a few elements. This is associated
with the relatively low in-plane strength of the impregnated woven flax fiber
lamina as well as the high interlaminar toughness of this laminated composite.
These characteristics of this composite system lead to in-plane fiber dominated
fractures prior to the interlaminar damage development under the stress
distribution caused by transverse impact loading of the laminate. This result is
very similar to what observed experimentally from the impacted specimen
(Figure 6.6). The very small interlaminar failure zone (cohesive interface)
which observed from both the experimental results and the numerical prediction,
indicates that delamination is not a dominant failure mode in the woven
flax/epoxy laminated composite.

(a)
75mm
Ply 1 Ply 4
Experimental
Ply 1
125mm
Coh. 1
Coh. 2
Coh. 3
Warp Warp
Ply 4
Weft Weft
T4
T3
T2
T1
Ply 1 Coh. 1 Coh. 2 Coh. 2 Ply 4
Impact face Cohesive interfaces Back face

Chapter 7 183
(b)
75mm
Ply 1 Ply 4
Experimental
Ply 1
125mm
Coh. 1
Coh. 2
Coh. 3
Warp Warp
Ply 4
Weft Weft
T4
T3
T2
T1
Ply 1 Coh. 1 Coh. 2 Coh. 2 Ply 4
Impact face Cohesive interfaces Back face
Figure 7.7. Damage evolution at top and back surface of composite plate and the all cohesive
interfaces during low-velocity impact at specified time T 1 to T4 for (a) 19.6 J and (b) 44.6J
impact energy (The damage at T 4 is compared with the actual specimen).
7.4.3. Matrix damage and delamination
In-plane matrix damage was found to absorb substantial energy compared to
delamination under transverse impact loading. Figure 7.8 indicates that the
energy dissipated by matrix damage during impact is significantly higher than
the energy dissipated by delamination for both impact cases. The energy
dissipated by delamination is 3% and 4% of total absorbed impact energy of
non-perforation and perforation test, respectively, whereas the contribution of
matrix damage is almost 55% and 45% for non-perforation and perforation
impact, respectively. The rest of absorbed energy is dissipated by fiber damage
mechanisms. In other words, fiber breakage and matrix damage composed of
plasticity and yielding are the main energy dissipation mechanisms. These
results of numerical analysis are consistent with the experimental finding of
Chapter 6.6, in which, in the absence of delamination, the fiber breakage and
matrix cracking were found to be the major energy dissipation mechanisms.
The tendency to propagate in-plane damages rather than delamination is
attributable to, first, the high interlaminar fracture toughness, and second, the
low in-plane strength of the woven flax fiber composite, as discussed in Chapter
4. In other words, the energy required for delamination propagation is higher
than the energy needed for developing in-plane damages in the woven flax
laminate under transverse impact. Consequently, the majority of the impact
energy is dissipated by the in-plane damage mechanisms which are easier to
initiate and propagate. This behavior is in contrast to that generally observed for
the laminates made of synthetic fibers where delamination is the dominant

Chapter 7 185
failure mode under impact loading due to a significant difference between the
in-plane interlaminar strength [129,199].
(a) (b)
10 25
Delamination Matrix damage Delamination Matrix damage
9
8 20
6 15
Energy (J)
Energy (J)
4 10
2 5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20
Time (ms) Time (ms)
Figure 7.8. Comparison of energy dissipation by delamination with matrix damage in woven
flax fiber composite subjected to (a) 19.6J and (b) 44.6J impact energy.
7.4.4. Permanent deformation
The permanent out-of-plane deformation of the plate is mainly attributed to the
plasticity of matrix [84]. Figure 7.9 shows the permanent indentation captured
by numerical simulation, after full separation of the impactor in non-perforation
impact (19.6J), and compares with an experimental specimen. This permanent
deformation is determinative in defining the post-impact performance of the
laminates [200].
The prediction of the permanent indentation after impact ( = 3.42 mm) is in good
agreement with the experimental values ( = 3.95 ∓ 0.15 mm ) which are
measured immediately after test. The capability of the numerical model to
capture the permanent deformation is attributed to the nonlinear shear response
of the matrix damage model. As discussed in the martial modeling, the matrix
elastic and inelastic parameters were empirically calibrated through the cyclic
shear test (see Appendix C).
(a) (b)
A A
Permanent indentation A A
Figure 7.9. Permanent indentation after non-perforation impact (19.6J); (a) average
experimental measurements = 3.95 mm; (b) numerical results = 3.42 mm.
The 3D deformed shape of the perforated specimen (44.6J) captured by this
model is given in Figure 7.10. It can be seen that the overall damage pattern,
damage size, and permanent deformation after penetration are in good
agreement with the experimental impacted specimen of Figure 6.2a.
Impact face Back face
Figure 7.10. Deformed shape after full perforation impact (44.6J)

Chapter 7 187
7.4.5. Effect of intralaminar fracture toughness
It was shown in Chapter 6.6 that the stitching caused imperfections can play as
a crack initiator which result in a lower intralaminar toughness of the composite
when subjected to transverse impact. This effect of stitching is investigated
using the developed numerical model while the values of used intralaminar
fracture toughness for unstitched laminates (as given in Table 7.1), are reduced
by 16%. This value is used based on the maximum reduction in the impact
fracture toughness of the laminate which was empirically observed for the flax
yarn stitched woven laminates (PWF) – as shown in Figure 6.13. It is
worthwhile to note that here only the effect of reduction in intralaminar fracture
toughness of the laminate is evaluated and the other properties remain
unchanged.
The results of numerical simulation for the reduced intralaminar fracture
toughness of the woven flax fiber composite (denoted by ‘FEM–reduced FT’)
are compared with the experimental result of the flax yarn stitched laminate
(PWF) in Figure 7.11a. As can be seen, the numerical model with reduced
toughness gives a satisfactory estimation of the impact force for the stitched
laminate. The prediction of the enlarged fiber-dominated cracks at impact and
back surfaces are also in good agreement with those of experimental
measurements, as shown in Figure 7.11b. From the experimental and numerical
results, it can be concluded that although the flax yarn stitching was found to be
effective in enhancing the interlaminar fracture toughness of the flax fiber
composites [180], the intralaminar fracture toughness of the laminates may be

compromised by stitching-induced defects which results a lower impact
resistance (i.e. larger longitudinal and transverse crack).
(a) (b)
75mm 75mm
3000 Impact face Back face

Exp - Unstitched (PW0)
FEM - Unstitched
2500
Exp - Stitched (PWF)
125mm
FEM - Reduced FT
2000
Force (N)
Warp Warp
Weft
1500 Weft
1000
125mm
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ply 1 Ply 4
Time (ms)
Figure 7.11. (a) Impact force history of unstitched and flax yarn stitched laminates; (b)
Prediction of damage on the impact and back surface of the flax yarn stitched laminate using
reduced FT values.
7.5. Conclusion
A numerical model is developed to study the material behavior and damage
development of the woven flax fiber/epoxy composite subjected to low-velocity
impact with two different energies, with and without perforation. The virtual
low-velocity impact test was implemented by using a continuum damage
mechanics (CDM) approach to model the in-plane fiber and matrix damage
(intra-laminar failure) and the cohesive element to model delamination of the
woven flax laminate, and a rigid body to model the impactor. The numerical
Chapter 7 189
results were verified by the experimental study conducted in Chapter 6.
Although the fiber architecture of the flax/epoxy composite differs from
conventional fiber reinforced composites – in terms of the variability in fiber
length, diameter, alignment, and dispersion – it was shown that the CDM
approach with linear approximation for elastic response is able to predict the
force history, deformation and the impact damage in woven flax composite to
good accuracy at different energy levels. The experimental observation that
delamination is very minor and absorbs only up to 4% of the total absorbed
impact energy was also numerically verified. Moreover, from the damage
evolution and energy absorption mechanisms observed, the simulation results
showed that fiber damage and matrix plasticity are the dominant failure modes
which correspond well to experimental observations.

190 General Conclusion and recommendations
Chapter 8
General Conclusion and recommendations
8.1. General Conclusion

This research aims to study the effects of introducing out-of-plane natural fiber
stitches on the in-plane mechanical properties, the interlaminar fracture
toughness and the low-velocity impact performance of resin-infused
continuous-flax/epoxy composite laminates. The investigations sought to
understand the influence of stitch fiber type, stitch areal fraction and preform
architecture on the failure mechanisms and behaviors. Another objective of this
work is to develop finite element models for natural fiber composites, and
enable the accurate prediction of composite failure under Mode I opening and
transverse impact modes.
Experimental tests showed that the presence of stitches led to notable reductions
in the in-plane tensile strength and stiffness of the stitched woven composites
by as much as 18% and 12% respectively at the highest stitch areal fraction of
0.02, regardless of the type of stitch material used. The flexural modulus of the
stitched composite remained relatively unchanged, whilst the flexural strength
of the composites showed a dependence on stitch material type, registering a
reduction of up to 12% when the thicker diameter flax yarn stitch (0.33 mm2)
Chapter 8 191
was used, and negligible effect with the 0.055 mm2 cotton thread stitching, at
similar stitch areal fractions.
Despite having a greater detrimental effect on the composites’ in-plane
properties, stitching with flax yarn was found to be more effective than cotton
threads in enhancing the Mode I fracture resistance of woven flax/epoxy double
cantilever beams at similar stitch areal fractions. The Mode I crack propagated
in a stable progressive manner through cotton-thread stitched laminate at very
similar fracture energies as the unstitched laminates. The flax-yarn stitched
laminates, however, could increase the fracture energies by up to 21%. A change
in crack growth behavior from stable propagation to stick-slip unstable fracture
was observed, but the average fracture loads and GIC values (including the
reduced values at crack arrest points) were always higher than the average
measurements obtained for the unstitched laminates. These results were
recurrent in flax-yarn stitched composites of having either the unidirectional or
woven in-plane flax reinforcements. The increased toughness was mainly
attributed to (i) the increased fiber bridging, (ii) higher tensile bridging traction
supported by the impregnated flax stitch-yarns and (iii) the increase in matrix
shear yielding around the stitch sites.
An interesting observation was made with regards to the in-plane preform
architecture of unstitched flax composites during DCB Mode I testing. During
the early phases of crack initiation and propagation, the G IC values of the
unstitched woven composites showed a more pronounced R-curve development
than the unidirectional flax preforms. The toughening effect came from higher
levels of fiber nesting and fiber bridging, which led to greater energy dissipation
supported by the woven preform during fracture.
The experimental investigation of natural fiber stitching on the low-velocity
impact response of continuous flax/epoxy composite laminates showed that
both flax and cotton stitched woven composites failed in a similar manner,
predominated by a cross-shaped, through-thickness crack. Little signs of
delamination were observed, except in the cross-ply unidirectional composite
specimens. The normalized initiation force ( P1 /t 3 ) for stitched woven flax
laminates were marginally lower than the unstitched ones due to lowered crack
resistance brought about by stitch-induced damages. The flax yarn stitch is
generally more detrimental to the transverse impact fracture resistance of the
woven flax composites, reducing the impact fracture toughness by almost 16%,
compared to 5% for the cotton stitch. At the higher impact energies where the
laminates were fully perforated, the efficiency of absorbed energy over impact
energy exceeded 90% for all types of specimens, with a less pronounced
discrepancy between unstitched and stitched laminates. Bending fractures of the
quad-segments created by the cross-shaped cracks were a common feature.
The stitch-enhanced delamination resistance observed earlier in Mode I for flax-
stitched composites could not be replicated in the transverse impact tests, due
to the predominance of fiber failures which severely limited the occurrence of
delamination. The transverse impact damage mode is therefore very different
from those of synthetic carbon or glass fiber composites where the fibers rarely
fail at low loads and most of the damage occurs in the matrix via sub-surface
Chapter 8 193
delamination. The presence of non-visible damage is therefore less likely to be
an issue on the maintenance of natural fiber composites.
Two finite element numerical models were also developed in this project to
provide validated simulation tools for the accurate prediction of natural fiber
composites failure under DCB Mode I opening and transverse impact modes. In
the virtual DCB test model, a cohesive element with bilinear softening law
obtained from superposition of two linear softening cohesive law was used to
model the R-curve effect. The parameter definitions were based on the
experimental Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness values of the UD
flax/epoxy composite laminates. This was superposed with transverse beam
elements as the stitch fibers, based on impregnated stitch yarn properties, to
simulate the delamination of the stitched-laminate in the presence of extensive
in-plane fiber bridging. This FE modeling strategy was able to predict the
change in failure mode to stick-slip propagation in stitched flax composites, and
the Mode I critical strain energy release rates (GIC) obtained from the
delamination simulation study aligned very well with the range of the measured
values. A parametric study on the strength of the stitch yarn showed that the
variation in the measured values of GIC mainly attributes to the intrinsic
dispersion of the stitch yarn strength.
Finally, an FE model was also implemented to study the material behavior and
damage development of the woven flax fiber/epoxy composite subjected to low-
velocity impact. The virtual drop weight impact test was implemented by using
a continuum damage mechanics (CDM) approach to model the in-plane fiber
and matrix damage (intra-laminar failure) and the cohesive element to model
delamination of the woven flax laminate, and a rigid body to model the impactor.
The numerical results were verified by the experimental study conducted
in Chapter 6. Although the fiber architecture of the flax/epoxy composite differs
from conventional fiber reinforced composites – in terms of the variability in
fiber length, diameter, alignment, and dispersion – it was shown that the CDM
approach with linear approximation for elastic response is able to predict the
force history, deformation and the impact damage in woven flax composite to
good accuracy at different energy levels. The experimental observation that
delamination is very minor was numerically verified and proved that
delamination failure absorbs only up to 4% of the total absorbed impact energy.
Moreover, from the damage evolution and energy absorption mechanisms
observed, the simulation results showed that fiber damage and matrix plasticity
are the dominant failure modes which correspond well to experimental
observations.
The experiment and numerical work conducted in this study have helped to
deepen the understanding of the material behavior and failure mechanisms of
stitched flax fiber composite laminates. Stitching is certainly an effective
technique to increase the Mode I delamination resistance of natural fiber
composites, but in some measure to the detriment of its transverse impact
performance and in-plane composite properties, and requires careful
consideration to be given to the stitch material and areal fraction. Effective
simulation strategies have been proposed and validated for the numerical
prediction of Mode I delamination and low energy transverse impact fractures,
which can be used for further developments in natural fiber composites.

Chapter 8 195
8.2. Recommendations
The general aims of the research and development work on natural fiber
composites revolves around, firstly, the understanding their material behavior,
fracture mechanism, in-service performance and durability, and secondly, to
improve their properties through new techniques that may extend their use to
many more applications, particularly those that still rely on nonrenewable or
non-eco-friendly materials. Some potential areas for future investigations that
are in line with the aforementioned objectives are proposed below.
 The results of this study suggested that flax-yarn-stitching is a promising
technique to enhance the Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of
flax/epoxy composite laminates. However, the defects induced by the
stitching process might affect the in-plane performance – i.e. tensile,
flexural and impact – of the woven laminates. On the other hand, it is
known that 3D woven fabric composites generally suggest higher
interlaminar and in-plane fracture toughness, better damage resistance,
and higher energy dissipation in comparison with 2D reinforced
composites [201–203]. Thus, in order to reduce the adverse effects of
stitching, it will be interesting to consider 3D woven textile preforms
using the optimally twisted flax yarn and investigate their mechanical
and impact performance.
 In spite of the favorable properties of flax fibers, their water absorption
and relatively low mechanical properties and impact resistant compared
to synthetic counterparts, are some of the major impediments to the
penetration of their use into higher performance applications. Although

numerous studies have attempted addressing these issues in an effort to
enhance the performance of flax and other natural fiber composites
through improving fiber-matrix adhesion [204,205], processing
technique [206], fiber preform architecture [6], their performance is still
considered low [207] for structural applications. The idea of fiber
hybridization, i.e. having two or more types of fiber within the same
matrix, has been around for some time [208], however recent emergence
of new materials creates new and exciting possibilities for obtaining
superior hybrid composites tailored for particular applications.
Motivated by the need for higher mechanical performance, lower cost
and sustainability, there has been growing interest recently in
hybridization of natural fibers with synthetic fibers such as glass [209–
214] and carbon [215–219] with the different objectives vary from
assessing improvements in thermal stability, water absorption behavior,
stiffness, strength and impact properties, to acoustic and vibration
damping properties. However, a comprehensive understanding of the
effect of different hybridization level on the mechanical performance is
still lacking. Future research should attempt to investigate the effects of
the hybridization levels of flax fibers with synthetic carbon or glass
fibers – such as interlayer, intralayer and intrayarn [220]– and quantify
the achievable performance enhancement. Looking at other aspects of
hybridization such as benefits in damage resistance, fatigue behavior,
environmental impacts and recyclability is also necessary in this regard.

Chapter 8 197
 It is also recommended to investigate the possibilities of hybridizing flax
fibers and recycled carbon fibers for manufacturing hybrid aligned
discontinuous fiber composites, and study their performance for
engineering applications.
 In the present work, the potential of the continuum damage model (CDM)
for modeling woven flax fabric composite at ply level was assessed.
Despite the fact that the model (using the average mechanical properties
of the composite) was able to predict the material behavior and damage
development with good accuracy, the intrinsic variation in the size,
distribution, properties and alignment of flax fibers was not taken into
account. One possible avenue of future work is conducting a multi-scale
numerical analysis on the flax fiber composite, starting from the
micromechanics. It would be interesting to numerically study the
progressive failure of flax fiber composite at different length scales,
where it is difficult or impossible to be captured by experimental
methods. To develop a multiscale model, firstly, a representative volume
element (RVE) of flax fiber composite needs to be defined, taking into
account the intrinsic variation in geometry, orientation and mechanical
properties of flax fibers. Then, the results from analysis of this RVE can
be used to determine the meso and microscale behavior of the flax fiber
composites through multiscale analysis approaches. Additional
suggestion would be to develop a model using the statistical mechanics
for predicting the mechanical properties of the composite based on
uncertainty in the properties of fibers. The disposal of numerical models

with reasonable accuracy to predict the mechanical properties not only
provide a better understanding of the behavior of natural fiber
composites, but also can help to extend their use to engineering
applications.
 Throughout the study, it was found that flax-yarn-stitching is an
effective way to increase the Mode I fracture toughness of flax fiber
composites. This suggests that flax yarn stitched laminates may be
utilized in applications that are needed for absorbing and dissipating
energy, such as crash beams used in transport vehicles [221]. In this
regards, it would be interesting to study the potential of using stitched
flax fiber laminates for designing lightweight crash structures. Future
research should attempt to investigate the energy absorption
performance and failure mechanisms of these structures under impact
loading.
 In the aspect of low-cost manufacturing, there is a need to conduct a
comprehensive study to assess the effect of various processing
techniques – such as hand lay-up, RTM, VARTM, vacuum infusion, etc.
– of flax fiber composites on the final properties of their composites and
distinguish the key influencing factors. The results of such studies can
help to develop cost-effective products of flax fiber composites and
spread their market.

References 199
References
[1] O. Faruk, A.K. Bledzki, H.-P. Fink, M. Sain, Biocomposites reinforced

with natural fibers: 2000–2010, Progress in Polymer Science. 37 (2012)
1552–1596. doi:10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2012.04.003.
[2] L. Yan, N. Chouw, K. Jayaraman, Flax fibre and its composites – A

review, Composites Part B: Engineering. 56 (2014) 296–317.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.08.014.
[3] F. Ahmad, H.S. Choi, M.K. Park, A Review: Natural Fiber Composites
Selection in View of Mechanical, Light Weight, and Economic
Properties, Macromol. Mater. Eng. 300 (2015) 10–24.
doi:10.1002/mame.201400089.
[4] L. Pil, F. Bensadoun, J. Pariset, I. Verpoest, Why are designers

fascinated by flax and hemp fibre composites?, Composites Part A:
Applied Science and Manufacturing. 83 (2016) 193–205.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.11.004.
[5] D.U. Shah, Natural fibre composites: Comprehensive Ashby-type

materials selection charts, Materials & Design. 62 (2014) 21–31.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2014.05.002.
[6] S. Goutianos, T. Peijs, B. Nystrom, M. Skrifvars, Development of Flax

Fibre based Textile Reinforcements for Composite Applications, Appl
Compos Mater. 13 (2006) 199–215.
[7] B.A. Muralidhar, Tensile and compressive properties of flax-plain

weave preform reinforced epoxy composites, Journal of Reinforced
Plastics and Composites. 32 (2013) 207–213.
[8] F. Bensadoun, K.A.M. Vallons, L.B. Lessard, I. Verpoest, A.W. Van

Vuure, Fatigue behaviour assessment of flax–epoxy composites,
Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing. 82 (2016)
253–266. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.11.003.
[9] Q. Liu, M. Hughes, The fracture behaviour and toughness of woven flax
fibre reinforced epoxy composites, Composites Part A: Applied Science
and Manufacturing. 39 (2008) 1644–1652.
[10] C. Scarponi, 12 - Impact behavior of natural fiber composite laminates,

in: N.E. Zafeiropoulos (Ed.), Interface Engineering of Natural Fibre
Composites for Maximum Performance, Woodhead Publishing, 2011:
pp. 341–382.
200 References
[11] S. Liang, L. Guillaumat, P.-B. Gning, Impact behaviour of flax/epoxy

composite plates, International Journal of Impact Engineering. 80
(2015) 56–64.
[12] R. Petrucci, C. Santulli, D. Puglia, E. Nisini, F. Sarasini, J. Tirillò, L.

Torre, G. Minak, J.M. Kenny, Impact and post-impact damage
characterisation of hybrid composite laminates based on basalt fibres in
combination with flax, hemp and glass fibres manufactured by vacuum
infusion, Composites Part B: Engineering. 69 (2015) 507–515.
[13] P. Robinson, E. Greenhalgh, S. Pinho, Failure Mechanisms in Polymer

Matrix Composites: Criteria, Testing and Industrial Applications,
Woodhead Publishing, Elsevier, 2012.
[14] K.T. Tan, N. Watanabe, Y. Iwahori, Impact Damage Resistance,

Response, and Mechanisms of Laminated Composites Reinforced by
Through-Thickness Stitching, International Journal of Damage
Mechanics. 21 (2012) 51–80. doi:10.1177/1056789510397070.
[15] T. Huber, S. Bickerton, J. Müssig, S. Pang, M.P. Staiger, Flexural and

impact properties of all-cellulose composite laminates, Composites
Science and Technology. 88 (2013) 92–98.
[16] S.-C. Dai, W. Yan, H.-Y. Liu, Y.-W. Mai, Experimental study on z-pin
bridging law by pullout test, Composites Science and Technology. 64
(2004) 2451–2457.
[17] Y. Qiao, Fracture toughness of composite materials reinforced by

debondable particulates, Scripta Materialia. 49 (2003) 491–496.
[18] N. Sela, O. Ishai, Interlaminar fracture toughness and toughening of

laminated composite materials: a review, Composites. 20 (1989) 423–
435.
[19] M. Ansar, W. Xinwei, Z. Chouwei, Modeling strategies of 3D woven

composites: A review, Composite Structures. 93 (2011) 1947–1963.
[20] P. Suppakul, S. Bandyopadhyay, The effect of weave pattern on the

mode-I interlaminar fracture energy of E-glass/vinyl ester composites,
Composites Science and Technology. 62 (2002) 709–717.
[21] L. Tong, A.P. Mouritz, M.K. Bannister, 3D Fibre Reinforced Polymer

Composites, Elsevier Science, Oxford, 2002.
[22] Y. Iwahori, T. Ishikawa, Y. Hayashi, N. Watanabe, Study of

interlaminar fracture toughness improvement on stitched CFRP
laminates, Journal of the Japan Society for Composite Materials(Japan).
26 (2000) 90–100.
References 201
[23] Y. Iwahori, K. Nakane, N. Watanabe, DCB test simulation of stitched

CFRP laminates using interlaminar tension test results, Composites
[24] K.A. Dransfield, L.K. Jain, Y.-W. Mai, On the effects of stitching in
CFRPs—I. mode I delamination toughness, Composites Science and
Technology. 58 (1998) 815–827.
[25] A.P. Mouritz, B.N. Cox, A mechanistic approach to the properties of

stitched laminates, Composites Part A: Applied Science and
Manufacturing. 31 (2000) 1–27. doi:10.1016/S1359-835X(99)00056-1.
[26] K.T. Tan, N. Watanabe, Y. Iwahori, T. Ishikawa, Understanding

effectiveness of stitching in suppression of impact damage: An
empirical delamination reduction trend for stitched composites,
[27] K.T. Tan, N. Watanabe, M. Sano, Y. Iwahori, H. Hoshi, Interlaminar

Fracture Toughness of Vectran-stitched Composites - Experimental and
Computational Analysis, Journal of Composite Materials. 44 (2010)
3203–3229.
[28] A. Yudhanto, N. Watanabe, Y. Iwahori, H. Hoshi, The effects of stitch

orientation on the tensile and open hole tension properties of
carbon/epoxy plain weave laminates, Materials & Design. 35 (2012)
563–571. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2011.09.013.
[29] H. Ghasemnejad, Y. Argentiero, T.A. Tez, P.E. Barrington, Impact

damage response of natural stitched single lap-joint in composite
structures, Materials & Design. 51 (2013) 552–560.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2013.04.059.
[30] A. Aktaş, M. Aktaş, F. Turan, Impact and post impact (CAI) behavior
of stitched woven–knit hybrid composites, Composite Structures. 116
(2014) 243–253. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.05.024.
[31] K.T. Tan, A. Yoshimura, N. Watanabe, Y. Iwahori, T. Ishikawa, Effect

of stitch density and stitch thread thickness on damage progression and
failure characteristics of stitched composites under out-of-plane loading,
doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2012.11.001.
[32] A.P. Mouritz, B.N. Cox, A mechanistic interpretation of the

comparative in-plane mechanical properties of 3D woven, stitched and
pinned composites, Composites Part A: Applied Science and
Manufacturing. 41 (2010) 709–728.
202 References
[33] X. Sun, L. Tong, M.D.K. Wood, Y.-W. Mai, Effect of stitch distribution
on mode I delamination toughness of laminated DCB specimens,
[34] G.-C. Tsai, J.-W. Chen, Effect of stitching on Mode I strain energy
release rate, Composite Structures. 69 (2005) 1–9.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2004.02.009.
[35] M.Z. Rong, M.Q. Zhang, Y. Liu, Z.W. Zhang, G.C. Yang, H.M. Zeng,
Effect of Stitching on In-Plane and Interlaminar Properties of
Sisal/Epoxy Laminates, Journal of Composite Materials. 36 (2002)
1505–1526.
[36] A. Hodzic, R. Shanks, Natural Fibre Composites: Materials, Processes

and Properties, Woodhead Publishing, 2014.
[37] P. Wambua, J. Ivens, I. Verpoest, Natural fibres: can they replace glass
in fibre reinforced plastics?, Composites Science and Technology. 63
(2003) 1259–1264.
[38] I. Van de Weyenberg, Flax Fibres as a Reinforcement for Epoxy

Composites (Vlasvezels als versterkingsmateriaal in epoxy
composieten), Ph.D., KU Leuven, 2005.
https://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/1979/164 (accessed May 7, 2014).
[39] K. Pickering, Properties and Performance of Natural-Fibre Composites,

Elsevier, 2008.
[40] J.M. Lawther, HANS LILHOLT, Comprehensive Composite Materials:

Fiber Reinforcements and General Theory of Composites. 1 (2000) 303.
[41] D.U. Shah, Developing plant fibre composites for structural

applications by optimising composite parameters: a critical review, J
Mater Sci. 48 (2013) 6083–6107. doi:10.1007/s10853-013-7458-7.
[42] Lucintel Analyzes Natural Fiber Composites Outlook for 2011 and
Beyond, (2011). http://www.businesswire.com/.
[43] Carus M, Eder A, Dammer L, Korte H, Scholz L, Essel R, Breitmayer

E, Wood-Plastic Composites (WPC) and Natural Fibre Composites
(NFC): European and Global Markets 2012 and Future Trends in
Automotive and Construction, 2014.
[44] J. Müssig, K. Haag, 2 - the Use of Flax Fibres as Reinforcements in

Composites, in: O. Faruk, M. Sain (Eds.), Biofiber Reinforcements in
Composite Materials, Woodhead Publishing, 2015: pp. 35–85.
[45] H.L. Bos, The potential of flax fibres as reinforcement for composite
materials, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven, 2004.
References 203
[46] D.U. Shah, P.J. Schubel, M.J. Clifford, Can flax replace E-glass in
structural composites? A small wind turbine blade case study,
Composites Part B: Engineering. 52 (2013) 172–181.
[47] F. Bensadoun, In-service behaviour of flax fibre reinforced composites

for high performance applications, Ph.D., KU Leuven, 2016.
[48] C. W.Hock, Microscopic structure of flax and related bast fibers,

Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standard. 29 (1942) 41–
50.
[49] K. Van de Velde, E. Baetens, Thermal and Mechanical Properties of

Flax Fibres as Potential Composite Reinforcement, Macromolecular
Materials and Engineering. 286 (2001) 342–349. doi:10.1002/1439.
[50] H.L. Bos, M.J.A.V.D. Oever, O.C.J.J. Peters, Tensile and compressive
properties of flax fibres for natural fibre reinforced composites, Journal
of Materials Science. 37 (2002) 1683–1692.
doi:10.1023/A:1014925621252.
[51] H.L. Bos, J. Müssig, M.J.A. van den Oever, Mechanical properties of
short-flax-fibre reinforced compounds, Composites Part A: Applied
Science and Manufacturing. 37 (2006) 1591–1604.
[52] K. Charlet, C. Baley, C. Morvan, J.P. Jernot, M. Gomina, J. Bréard,

Characteristics of Hermès flax fibres as a function of their location in
the stem and properties of the derived unidirectional composites,
[53] W. Hamad, Cellulosic Materials: Fibers, Networks, and Composites,

Springer Science & Business Media, 2001.
[54] X.S. Sun, Overview of Plant Polymers, in: Handbook of Biopolymers

and Biodegradable Plastics, Elsevier, 2013: pp. 1–10.
[55] O. Faruk, M. Sain, Biofiber Reinforcements in Composite Materials,

Elsevier, 2014.
[56] A. Stamboulis, C.A. Baillie, T. Peijs, Effects of environmental

conditions on mechanical and physical properties of flax fibers,
1105–1115. doi:10.1016/S1359-835X(01)00032-X.
[57] A.K. Bledzki, J. Gassan, Composites reinforced with cellulose based

fibres, Progress in Polymer Science. 24 (1999) 221–274.
doi:10.1016/S0079-6700(98)00018-5.
204 References
[58] D.N. Saheb, J.P. Jog, Natural fiber polymer composites: a review,
Advances in Polymer Technology. 18 (1999) 351–363.
[59] H.P.S.A. Khalil, H.D. Rozman, M.N. Ahmad, H. Ismail, Acetylated

Plant-Fiber-Reinforced Polyester Composites: A Study of Mechanical,
Hygrothermal, and Aging Characteristics, Polymer-Plastics Technology
and Engineering. 39 (2000) 757–781. doi:10.1081/PPT-100100057.
[60] C. Baley, F. Busnel, Y. Grohens, O. Sire, Influence of chemical

treatments on surface properties and adhesion of flax fibre–polyester
resin, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing. 37
(2006) 1626–1637. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2005.10.014.
[61] E. Trujillo, M. Moesen, L. Osorio, A.W. Van Vuure, J. Ivens, I.

Verpoest, Bamboo fibres for reinforcement in composite materials:
Strength Weibull analysis, Composites Part A: Applied Science and
Manufacturing. 61 (2014) 115–125.
[62] A. Komuraiah, N.S. Kumar, B.D. Prasad, Chemical Composition of

Natural Fibers and its Influence on their Mechanical Properties, Mech
Compos Mater. (2014) 1–18. doi:10.1007/s11029-014-9422-2.
[63] J. Baets, D. Plastria, J. Ivens, I. Verpoest, Determination of the optimal

flax fibre preparation for use in unidirectional flax–epoxy composites,
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites. 33 (2014) 493–502.
doi:10.1177/0731684413518620.
[64] M. Assarar, D. Scida, A. El Mahi, C. Poilâne, R. Ayad, Influence of

water ageing on mechanical properties and damage events of two
reinforced composite materials: Flax–fibres and glass–fibres, Materials
& Design. 32 (2011) 788–795. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2010.07.024.
[65] A. Bourmaud, C. Baley, Effects of thermo mechanical processing on the

mechanical properties of biocomposite flax fibers evaluated by
nanoindentation, Polymer Degradation and Stability. 95 (2010) 1488–
1494. doi:10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2010.06.022.
[66] N.P.J. Dissanayake, J. Summerscales, S.M. Grove, M.M. Singh, Life

Cycle Impact Assessment of Flax Fibre for the Reinforcement of
Composites, Journal of Biobased Materials and Bioenergy. 3 (2009)
245–248. doi:10.1166/jbmb.2009.1029.
[67] A. Arbelaiz, B. Fernández, G. Cantero, R. Llano-Ponte, A. Valea, I.

Mondragon, Mechanical properties of flax fibre/polypropylene
composites. Influence of fibre/matrix modification and glass fibre
hybridization, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing.
36 (2005) 1637–1644. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2005.03.021.
References 205
[68] A.K. Bledzki, The effects of acetylation on properties of flax fibre and
its polypropylene composites, eXPRESS Polymer Letters. 2 (2008)
413–422. doi:10.3144/expresspolymlett.2008.50.
[69] S. Marais, F. Gouanvé, A. Bonnesoeur, J. Grenet, F. Poncin-Epaillard,

C. Morvan, M. Métayer, Unsaturated polyester composites reinforced
with flax fibers: effect of cold plasma and autoclave treatments on
mechanical and permeation properties, Composites Part A: Applied
[70] A.K. Bledzki, O. Faruk, V.E. Sperber, Cars from Bio-Fibres,

Macromol. Mater. Eng. 291 (2006) 449–457.
doi:10.1002/mame.200600113.
[71] J. Baets, F. Vanfleteren, I. Verpoest, UD-flax preforms for optimal

natural fibre composites performance, Status: Published. (2013) 1–6.
[72] S. Goutianos, T. Peijs, The optimisation of flax fibre yarns for the
development of high-performance natural fibre composites., Advanced
Composites Letters. 12 (2003) 237–241.
[73] G. Huang, L. Liu, Research on properties of thermoplastic composites

reinforced by flax fabrics, Materials & Design. 29 (2008) 1075–1079.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2007.03.027.
[74] D.U. Shah, P.J. Schubel, M.J. Clifford, Modelling the effect of yarn
twist on the tensile strength of unidirectional plant fibre yarn
composites, Journal of Composite Materials. 47 (2013) 425–436.
[75] B. Weager, Growing for Gold, Materials World. 21 (2013) 24–25.
[76] S.K. Mazumdar, Composites manufacturing: materials, product, and

process engineering, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., 2002.
[77] M.S. Huda, L.T. Drzal, A.K. Mohanty, M. Misra, Effect of fiber
surface-treatments on the properties of laminated biocomposites from
poly(lactic acid) (PLA) and kenaf fibers, Composites Science and
Technology. 68 (2008) 424–432.
[78] O. Faruk, A.K. Bledzki, H.-P. Fink, M. Sain, Biocomposites reinforced

with natural fibers: 2000–2010, Progress in Polymer Science. 37 (2012)
1552–1596. doi:10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2012.04.003.
[79] S. Huo, A. Thapa, C.A. Ulven, Effect of surface treatments on

interfacial properties of flax fiber-reinforced composites, Advanced
Composite Materials. 22 (2013) 109–121.
doi:10.1080/09243046.2013.777996.
206 References
[80] G. Francucci, E. Rodriguez, Processing of plant fiber composites by

liquid molding techniques: An overview, Polym. Compos. (2014) n/a-
n/a. doi:10.1002/pc.23229.
[81] D30 Committee, Test Method for Measuring the Damage Resistance of
a Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite to a Drop-Weight
Impact Event, ASTM International, 2012.
[82] K.T. Tan, N. Watanabe, Y. Iwahori, T. Ishikawa, Effect of stitch density

and stitch thread thickness on compression after impact strength and
response of stitched composites, Composites Science and Technology.
72 (2012) 587–598. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2012.01.003.
[83] I.K. Giannopoulos, E.E. Theotokoglou, X. Zhang, Impact damage and

CAI strength of a woven CFRP material with fire retardant properties,
[84] W. Tan, B.G. Falzon, L.N.S. Chiu, M. Price, Predicting low velocity
impact damage and Compression-After-Impact (CAI) behaviour of
composite laminates, Composites Part A: Applied Science and
Manufacturing. 71 (2015) 212–226.
[85] G.A. Bibo, P.J. Hogg, Influence of reinforcement architecture on

damage mechanisms and residual strength of glass-fibre/epoxy
composite systems, Composites Science and Technology. 58 (1998)
803–813. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(97)00055-9.
[86] G. Caprino, V. Lopresto, On the penetration energy for fibre-reinforced

plastics under low-velocity impact conditions, Composites Science and
Technology. 61 (2001) 65–73. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(00)00152-4.
[87] T.-W. Shyr, Y.-H. Pan, Impact resistance and damage characteristics of
composite laminates, Composite Structures. 62 (2003) 193–203.
doi:10.1016/S0263-8223(03)00114-4.
[88] M. Aktaş, H. Ersen Balcıoğlu, A. Aktaş, E. Türker, M. Emin Deniz,

Impact and post impact behavior of layer fabric composites, Composite
Structures. 94 (2012) 2809–2818.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.04.008.
[89] B. Schrauwen, T. Peijs, Influence of Matrix Ductility and Fibre

Architecture on the Repeated Impact Response of Glass-Fibre-
Reinforced Laminated Composites, Applied Composite Materials. 9
(2002) 331–352. doi:10.1023/A:1020267013414.
[90] N.F. Rilo, L.M.S. Ferreira, Experimental study of low-velocity impacts

on glass-epoxy laminated composite plates, Int J Mech Mater Des. 4
(2008) 291–300. doi:10.1007/s10999-008-9071-5.
References 207
[91] P.O. Sjoblom, J.T. Hartness, T.M. Cordell, On Low-Velocity Impact

Testing of Composite Materials, Journal of Composite Materials. 22
(1988) 30–52. doi:10.1177/002199838802200103.
[92] ISO 6603-2:2000 - Plastics: Determination of puncture impact

behaviour of rigid plastics, Part 2: Instrumented impact testing, BSI,
2002.
[93] H.N. Dhakal, Z.Y. Zhang, M.O.W. Richardson, O.A.Z. Errajhi, The low
velocity impact response of non-woven hemp fibre reinforced
unsaturated polyester composites, Composite Structures. 81 (2007)
559–567.
[94] C. Santulli, A.P. Caruso, Effect of Fibre Architecture on the Falling

Weight Impact Properties of Hemp/Epoxy Composites, Journal of
Biobased Materials and Bioenergy. 3 (2009) 291–297.
[95] C. Scarponi, C.S. Pizzinelli, S. Sánchez-Sáez, E. Barbero, Impact load

behaviour of resin transfer moulding (RTM) hemp fibre composite
laminates, Journal of Biobased Materials and Bioenergy. 3 (2009) 298–
310.
[96] H.N. Dhakal, Z.Y. Zhang, N. Bennett, P.N.B. Reis, Low-velocity

impact response of non-woven hemp fibre reinforced unsaturated
polyester composites: Influence of impactor geometry and impact
velocity, Composite Structures. 94 (2012) 2756–2763.
[97] D.S. de Vasconcellos, F. Sarasini, F. Touchard, L. Chocinski-Arnault,

M. Pucci, C. Santulli, J. Tirillò, S. Iannace, L. Sorrentino, Influence of
low velocity impact on fatigue behaviour of woven hemp fibre
reinforced epoxy composites, Composites Part B: Engineering. 66
(2014) 46–57.
[98] H.N. Dhakal, V. Arumugam, A. Aswinraj, C. Santulli, Z.Y. Zhang, A.

Lopez-Arraiza, Influence of temperature and impact velocity on the
impact response of jute/UP composites, Polymer Testing. 35 (2014) 10–
19.
[99] H.N. Dhakal, M. Skrifvars, K. Adekunle, Z.Y. Zhang, Falling weight

impact response of jute/methacrylated soybean oil bio-composites under
low velocity impact loading, Composites Science and Technology. 92
(2014) 134–141.
[100] G. Caprino, L. Carrino, M. Durante, A. Langella, V. Lopresto, Low

impact behaviour of hemp fibre reinforced epoxy composites,
Composite Structures. 133 (2015) 892–901.
[101] P. Wambua, B. Vangrimde, S. Lomov, I. Verpoest, The response of

natural fibre composites to ballistic impact by fragment simulating
projectiles, Composite Structures. 77 (2007) 232–240.
208 References
[102] H.T.N. Kuan, W.J. Cantwell, M.A. Hazizan, C. Santulli, The fracture
properties of environmental-friendly fiber metal laminates, Journal of
Reinforced Plastics and Composites. 30 (2011) 499–508.
doi:10.1177/0731684411398536.
[103] R. Velmurugan, S. Solaimurugan, Improvements in Mode I interlaminar

fracture toughness and in-plane mechanical properties of stitched
glass/polyester composites, Composites Science and Technology. 67
(2007) 61–69. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2006.03.032.
[104] Muruganandhan, V. Murali, Mode-I Fracture and Impact Analysis on

Stitched and Unstitched Glass/Epoxy Composite Laminate, Procedia
Engineering. 38 (2012) 2207–2213.
[105] T.J. Kang, S.H. Lee, Effect of Stitching on the Mechanical and Impact
Properties of Woven Laminate Composite, Journal of Composite
Materials. 28 (1994) 1574–1587.
[106] A.P. Mouritz, K.H. Leong, I. Herszberg, A review of the effect of

stitching on the in-plane mechanical properties of fibre-reinforced
polymer composites, Composites Part A: Applied Science and
Manufacturing. 28 (1997) 979–991.
[107] A. Miravete, 3-D textile reinforcements in composite materials,

Woodhead Publishing Ltd, Cambridge, 1999.
[108] S. Solaimurugan, R. Velmurugan, Influence of in-plane fibre orientation

on mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of stitched glass/polyester
composites, Composites Science and Technology. 68 (2008) 1742–
1752. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2008.02.008.
[109] K. Dransfield, C. Baillie, Y.-W. Mai, Improving the delamination

resistance of CFRP by stitching—a review, Composites Science and
Technology. 50 (1994) 305–317. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(94)90019-1.
[110] L.K. Jain, Y.-W. Mai, On the effect of stitching on mode I delamination
toughness of laminated composites, Composites Science and
Technology. 51 (1994) 331–345. doi:10.1016/0266-3538(94)90103-1.
[111] A. Weinberg, Y. Eilam, Needle for machine stitching with a composite

thread, US7487733 B2, 2009.
[112] A. Weinberg, Y. Eilam, Sewing machine for stitching with a composite

thread, US7475647 B2, 2009.
[113] T. Tan, C. Sun, L. Mignery, The use of stitching to suppress

delamination in laminated composites, Delamination and Debonding of
materials(A 86-20626 07-24). Philadelphia, PA, American Society for
Testing and Materials, 1985,. (1985).
References 209
[114] K.P. Plain, L. Tong, An experimental study on mode I and II fracture

toughness of laminates stitched with a one-sided stitching technique,
[115] K.T. Tan, N. Watanabe, Y. Iwahori, Stitch fiber comparison for

improvement of interlaminar fracture toughness in stitched composites,
doi:10.1177/0731684410383065.
[116] W.C. Chung, B.Z. Jang, T.C. Chang, L.R. Hwang, R.C. Wilcox,
Fracture behavior in stitched multidirectional composites, Materials
Science and Engineering: A. 112 (1989) 157–173. doi:10.1016/0921-
5093(89)90355-9.
[117] M.D.K. Wood, X. Sun, L. Tong, A. Katzos, A.R. Rispler, Y.-W. Mai,
The effect of stitch distribution on Mode I delamination toughness of
stitched laminated composites – experimental results and FEA
simulation, Composites Science and Technology. 67 (2007) 1058–1072.
[118] X. Sun, M.D.K. Wood, L. Tong, A parametric study on the design of

stitched laminated DCB specimens, Composite Structures. 75 (2006)
72–78. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.04.061.
[119] N.E. Vandermey, D.H. Morris, J.E. Masters, Damage development

under compression-compression fatigue loading in a stitched uniwoven
graphite/epoxy composite material, (1991).
[120] E. Wu, J. Wang, Behavior of Stitched Laminates under In-Plane Tensile

and Transverse Impact Loading, Journal of Composite Materials. 29
(1995) 2254–2279. doi:10.1177/002199839502901702.
[121] L.K. Jain, K.A. Dransfield, Y.-W. Mai, On the effects of stitching in
CFRPs—II. Mode II delamination toughness, Composites Science and
Technology. 58 (1998) 829–837.
[122] K.T. Tan, N. Watanabe, Y. Iwahori, Experimental investigation of

bridging law for single stitch fibre using Interlaminar tension test,
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.11.018.
[123] H. Heß, N. Himmel, Structurally stitched NCF CFRP laminates. Part 1:

Experimental characterization of in-plane and out-of-plane properties,
[124] F. Aymerich, R. Onnis, P. Priolo, Analysis of the effect of stitching on

the fatigue strength of single-lap composite joints, Composites Science
and Technology. 66 (2006) 166–175.
210 References
[125] K. Bilisik, Three-dimensional braiding for composites: A review,

Textile Research Journal. 83 (2013) 1414–1436.
doi:10.1177/0040517512450766.
[126] A.P. Mouritz, B.N. Cox, A mechanistic interpretation of the

comparative in-plane mechanical properties of 3D woven, stitched and
pinned composites, Composites Part A: Applied Science and
Manufacturing. 41 (2010) 709–728.
[127] A.P. Mouritz, Tensile fatigue properties of 3D composites with through-

thickness reinforcement, Composites Science and Technology. 68
[128] V. Lopresto, V. Melito, C. Leone, G. Caprino, Effect of stitches on the

impact behaviour of graphite/epoxy composites, Composites Science
and Technology. 66 (2006) 206–214.
[129] K.T. Tan, N. Watanabe, Y. Iwahori, Effect of stitch density and stitch
thread thickness on low-velocity impact damage of stitched composites,
1857–1868.
[130] X. Guo, H. Long, L. Zhao, Investigation on the impact and

compression-after-impact properties of warp-knitted spacer fabrics,
Textile Research Journal. 83 (2013) 904–916.
doi:10.1177/0040517512461682.
[131] A. Yudhanto, N. Watanabe, Y. Iwahori, H. Hoshi, Effect of stitch

density on tensile properties and damage mechanisms of stitched
carbon/epoxy composites, Composites Part B: Engineering. 46 (2013)
151–165.
[132] K.T. Tan, N. Watanabe, Y. Iwahori, X-ray radiography and micro-

computed tomography examination of damage characteristics in
stitched composites subjected to impact loading, Composites Part B:
Engineering. 42 (2011) 874–884.
[133] A. Yoshimura, T. Nakao, S. Yashiro, N. Takeda, Improvement on out-

of-plane impact resistance of CFRP laminates due to through-the-
thickness stitching, Composites Part A: Applied Science and
Manufacturing. 39 (2008) 1370–1379.
[134] J.-H. Byun, S.-W. Song, C.-H. Lee, M.-K. Um, B.-S. Hwang, Impact
properties of laminated composites with stitching fibers, Composite
Structures. 76 (2006) 21–27. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.06.004.
References 211
[135] A.P. Mouritz, J. Gallagher, A.A. Goodwin, Flexural strength and

interlaminar shear strength of stitched GRP laminates following
repeated impacts, Composites Science and Technology. 57 (1997) 509–
522. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(96)00164-9.
[136] N. Ghafari-Namini, H. Ghasemnejad, Effect of natural stitched

composites on the crashworthiness of box structures, Materials &
Design. 39 (2012) 484–494. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2012.03.025.
[137] H.N. Dhakal, Z.Y. Zhang, R. Guthrie, J. MacMullen, N. Bennett,

Development of flax/carbon fibre hybrid composites for enhanced
properties, Carbohydrate Polymers. 96 (2013) 1–8.
doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.03.074.
[138] J. Flynn, A. Amiri, C. Ulven, Hybridized carbon and flax fiber

composites for tailored performance, Materials & Design. 102 (2016)
21–29. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2016.03.164.
[139] J. Modniks, J. Andersons, Modeling the non-linear deformation of a

short-flax-fiber-reinforced polymer composite by orientation averaging,
[140] J. Sliseris, L. Yan, B. Kasal, Numerical modelling of flax short fibre

reinforced and flax fibre fabric reinforced polymer composites,
[141] C. Mattrand, A. Béakou, K. Charlet, Numerical modeling of the flax

fiber morphology variability, Composites Part A: Applied Science and
Manufacturing. 63 (2014) 10–20.
[142] A. Beakou, K. Charlet, Mechanical properties of interfaces within a flax

bundle—Part II: Numerical analysis, International Journal of Adhesion
and Adhesives. 43 (2013) 54–59. doi:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2013.01.013.
[143] C. Poilâne, Z.E. Cherif, F. Richard, A. Vivet, B. Ben Doudou, J. Chen,

Polymer reinforced by flax fibres as a viscoelastoplastic material,
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.01.043.
[144] A. Rubio-López, T. Hoang, C. Santiuste, Constitutive model to predict

the viscoplastic behaviour of natural fibres based composites,
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.08.001.
[145] D. Shu, Y.-W. Mai, Effect of stitching on interlaminar delamination

extension in composite laminates, Composites Science and Technology.
49 (1993) 165–171.
212 References
[146] R. Massabo, B.N. Cox, Concepts for bridged Mode ii delamination

cracks, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids. 47 (1999)
1265–1300. doi:10.1016/S0022-5096(98)00107-0.
[147] H. Heß, N. Himmel, Structurally stitched NCF CFRP laminates. Part 2:

Finite element unit cell based prediction of in-plane strength,
[148] B.V. Sankar, S.M. Dharmapuri, Analysis of a Stitched Double

Cantilever Beam, Journal of Composite Materials. 32 (1998) 2203–
2225. doi:10.1177/002199839803202402.
[149] L. Chen, P.G. Ifju, B.V. Sankar, Analysis of Mode I and Mode II Tests
for Composites with Translaminar Reinforcements, Journal of
Composite Materials. 39 (2005) 1311–1333.
doi:10.1177/0021998305050425.
[150] B.F. Sørensen, T.K. Jacobsen, Large-scale bridging in composites: R-

curves and bridging laws, Composites Part A: Applied Science and
Manufacturing. 29 (1998) 1443–1451. doi:10.1016/S1359-
835X(98)00025-6.
[151] A. Airoldi, C.G. Dávila, Identification of material parameters for

modelling delamination in the presence of fibre bridging, Composite
Structures. 94 (2012) 3240–3249.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.05.014.
[152] V. Tamuzs, S. Tarasovs, U. Vilks, Progressive delamination and fiber

bridging modeling in double cantilever beam composite specimens,
Engineering Fracture Mechanics. 68 (2001) 513–525.
doi:10.1016/S0013-7944(00)00131-4.
[153] L. Sorensen, J. Botsis, T. Gmür, L. Humbert, Bridging tractions in

mode I delamination: Measurements and simulations, Composites
[154] C.G. Dávila, C.A. Rose, P.P. Camanho, A procedure for superposing
linear cohesive laws to represent multiple damage mechanisms in the
fracture of composites, Int J Fract. 158 (2009) 211–223.
doi:10.1007/s10704-009-9366-z.
[155] B.F. Sørensen, S. Goutianos, T.K. Jacobsen, Strength scaling of

adhesive joints in polymer–matrix composites, International Journal of
Solids and Structures. 46 (2009) 741–761.
doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2008.09.024.
[156] D. Scida, Z. Aboura, M.L. Benzeggagh, E. Bocherens, A

micromechanics model for 3D elasticity and failure of woven-fibre
References 213
composite materials, Composites Science and Technology. 59 (1999)

505–517. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(98)00096-7.
[157] O. Cousigné, D. Moncayo, D. Coutellier, P. Camanho, H. Naceur,

Numerical modeling of nonlinearity, plasticity and damage in CFRP-
woven composites for crash simulations, Composite Structures. 115
(2014) 75–88. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.04.017.
[158] A.F. Johnson, Modelling fabric reinforced composites under impact

loads, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing. 32
(2001) 1197–1206. doi:10.1016/S1359-835X(00)00186-X.
[159] O. Cousigné, D. Moncayo, D. Coutellier, P. Camanho, H. Naceur, S.

Hampel, Development of a new nonlinear numerical material model for
woven composite materials accounting for permanent deformation and
damage, Composite Structures. 106 (2013) 601–614.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.07.026.
[160] L. Iannucci, Progressive failure modelling of woven carbon composite

under impact, International Journal of Impact Engineering. 32 (2006)
1013–1043. doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2004.08.006.
[161] P.S. Shembekar, N.K. Naik, Elastic Behavior of Woven Fabric

Composites: II—Laminate Analysis, Journal of Composite Materials.
26 (1992) 2226–2246. doi:10.1177/002199839202601503.
[162] X. Tang, J.D. Whitcomb, Progressive Failure Behaviors of 2D Woven

Composites, Journal of Composite Materials. 37 (2003) 1239–1259.
doi:10.1177/0021998303037014002.
[163] M. Zako, Y. Uetsuji, T. Kurashiki, Finite element analysis of damaged

woven fabric composite materials, Composites Science and
Technology. 63 (2003) 507–516. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(02)00211-7.
[164] J. LLorca, C. González, J.M. Molina-Aldareguía, J. Segurado, R.

Seltzer, F. Sket, M. Rodríguez, S. Sádaba, R. Muñoz, L.P. Canal,
Multiscale Modeling of Composite Materials: a Roadmap Towards
Virtual Testing, Adv. Mater. 23 (2011) 5130–5147.
doi:10.1002/adma.201101683.
[165] J.Z. Mao, X.S. Sun, M. Ridha, V.B.C. Tan, T.E. Tay, A Modeling
Approach Across Length Scales for Progressive Failure Analysis of
Woven Composites, Applied Composite Materials. 20 (2012) 213–231.
doi:10.1007/s10443-012-9266-7.
[166] S.V. Lomov, D.S. Ivanov, I. Verpoest, M. Zako, T. Kurashiki, H.

Nakai, S. Hirosawa, Meso-FE modelling of textile composites: Road
map, data flow and algorithms, Composites Science and Technology. 67
214 References
[167] G. Ernst, M. Vogler, C. Hühne, R. Rolfes, Multiscale progressive

failure analysis of textile composites, Composites Science and
Technology. 70 (2010) 61–72. doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2009.09.006.
[168] Composites Evolution, (n.d.). http://compositesevolution.com/

(accessed October 15, 2016).
[169] LINEO - Advanced Flax, (n.d.). http://www.lineo.eu/ (accessed October

15, 2016).
[170] Cotton Threads, (n.d.).

https://www.guetermann.com/shop/en/view/content/Products-
Cotton?node=Consumer-Cotton-Threads (accessed October 15, 2016).
[171] Axson | Axson, (n.d.). http://www.axson-

technologies.com/us/index.html (accessed October 15, 2016).
[172] D20 Committee, Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced

and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials, ASTM
International, 2010.
[173] D30 Committee, Test Method for Mode I Interlaminar Fracture

Toughness of Unidirectional Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix
Composites, ASTM International, 2007.
[174] Y. Ogo, The effect of stitching on in-plane and interlaminar properties

of carbon-epoxy fabric laminates, CCM Report Number 87-17, Center
for Composite Materials, University of Delaware, Newark, pp 1-188,
1987.
[175] M. Olave, I. Vara, H. Husabiaga, L. Aretxabaleta, S.V. Lomov, D.

Vandepitte, Nesting effect on the mode I fracture toughness of woven
laminates, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing. 74
(2015) 166–173. doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.03.017.
[176] R.A. Pearson, A.F. Yee, Toughening mechanisms in thermoplastic-

modified epoxies: 1. Modification using poly(phenylene oxide),
Polymer. 34 (1993) 3658–3670.
[177] T. Ebeling, A. Hiltner, E. Baer, I.M. Fraser, M.L. Orton, Delamination

Failure of a Woven Glass Fiber Composite, Journal of Composite
Materials. 31 (1997) 1318–1333.
[178] J.-K. Kim, M.-L. Sham, Impact and delamination failure of woven-
fabric composites, Composites Science and Technology. 60 (2000)
745–761.
[179] C. Boyang, Numerical Modelling of Scale-Dependent Damage and

Failure of Composites, Ph.D., 2013.
References 215
[180] M. Ravandi, W.S. Teo, L.Q.N. Tran, M.S. Yong, T.E. Tay, The effects
of through-the-thickness stitching on the Mode I interlaminar fracture
toughness of flax/epoxy composite laminates, Materials & Design. 109
(2016) 659–669. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2016.07.093.
[181] A. Turon, C.G. Dávila, P.P. Camanho, J. Costa, An engineering solution

for mesh size effects in the simulation of delamination using cohesive
zone models, Engineering Fracture Mechanics. 74 (2007) 1665–1682.
doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.08.025.
[182] B.Y. Chen, T.E. Tay, P.M. Baiz, S.T. Pinho, Numerical analysis of size
effects on open-hole tensile composite laminates, Composites Part A:
Applied Science and Manufacturing. 47 (2013) 52–62.
[183] L. Lampani, Finite element analysis of delamination of a composite

component with the cohesive zone model technique, Engineering
Computations. 28 (2011) 30–46.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/10.1108/02644401111097000
.
[184] P.P. Camanho, C.G. Dávila, Mixed-mode decohesion finite elements for
the simulation of delamination in composite materials, NASA-
Technical Paper. 211737 (2002) 33.
[185] Abaqus Analysis User’s Manual, Version 6.11, 2011.
[186] M.L. Benzeggagh, M. Kenane, Measurement of mixed-mode

delamination fracture toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy
composites with mixed-mode bending apparatus, Composites Science
and Technology. 56 (1996) 439–449. doi:10.1016/0266-
3538(96)00005-X.
[187] M. Ravandi, W.S. Teo, L.Q.N. Tran, M.S.Y. and T.E. Tay, Mode I
Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of Natural Fiber Stitched Flax/Epoxy
Composite Laminates – Experimental and Numerical Analysis,
Proceedings of the American Society for Composites: Thirty-First
Technical Conference. 0 (2016). http://dpi-
proceedings.com/index.php/asc31/article/view/3287 (accessed October
4, 2016).
[188] C.H. Popelar, M.F. Kanninen, Advanced Fracture Mechanics, 1 edition,

Oxford University Press, New York, 1985.
[189] I.N. Dyson, A.J. Kinloch, A. Okada, The interlaminar failure behaviour
of carbon fibre/polyetheretherketone composites, Composites. 25
(1994) 189–196.
[190] M. Ravandi, W.S. Teo, L.Q.N. Tran, M.S. Yong, T.E. Tay, Effect of
through-the-thickness stitching and fibre architecture on the
216 References
interlaminar properties of flax/epoxy laminates, in: Proceedings of the

20th International Conference on Composite Materials ICCM-20,
Copenhagen, Denmark, July 19-24, 2015.
[191] P.P. Camanho, C.G. Davila, M.F. De Moura, Numerical simulation of

mixed-mode progressive delamination in composite materials, Journal
of Composite Materials. 37 (2003) 1415–1438.
[192] M. Ravandi, W.S. Teo, L.Q.N. Tran, M.S. Yong, T.E. Tay, Low
velocity impact performance of stitched flax/epoxy composite
laminates, Composites Part B: Engineering. 117 (2017) 89–100.
[193] M. Ravandi, W.S. Teo, L.Q.N. Tran, M.S. Yong, T.E. Tay, Effects of
the natural fiber stitching on the impact and compression after impact
response of the flax/epoxy composites, in: Munich, Germany, 2016.
[194] F. Aymerich, F. Dore, P. Priolo, Prediction of impact-induced

delamination in cross-ply composite laminates using cohesive interface
elements, Composites Science and Technology. 68 (2008) 2383–2390.
[195] Y. Xue, Y. Du, S. Elder, K. Wang, J. Zhang, Temperature and loading

rate effects on tensile properties of kenaf bast fiber bundles and
composites, Composites Part B: Engineering. 40 (2009) 189–196.
[196] S. Abrate, Impact on Laminated Composite Materials, Appl. Mech.

Rev. 44 (1991) 155–190. doi:10.1115/1.3119500.
[197] http://www.axson-na.com/TDSs/TDS - Epolam 5015 System, Epolam

5015-5014-5016, (n.d.).
[198] P.W. Harper, S.R. Hallett, Cohesive zone length in numerical

simulations of composite delamination, Engineering Fracture
Mechanics. 75 (2008) 4774–4792.
doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2008.06.004.
[199] F. Pascal, P. Navarro, S. Marguet, J.-F. Ferrero, On the modelling of

low to medium velocity impact onto woven composite materials with a
2D semi-continuous approach, Composite Structures. 134 (2015) 302–
310. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.08.067.
[200] P. Sztefek, R. Olsson, Nonlinear compressive stiffness in impacted

composite laminates determined by an inverse method, Composites Part
A: Applied Science and Manufacturing. 40 (2009) 260–272.
References 217
[201] V.A. Guénon, T.-W. Chou, J.W.G. Jr, Toughness properties of a three-
dimensional carbon-epoxy composite, J Mater Sci. 24 (1989) 4168–
4175. doi:10.1007/BF01168991.
[202] J.-H. Byun, J.W. Gillespie, T.-W. Chou, Mode I Delamination of a

Three-Dimensional Fabric Composite, Journal of Composite Materials.
24 (1990) 497–518. doi:10.1177/002199839002400503.
[203] J.M. Rice, Y.K. Kim, A.F. Lewis, B.K. Fink, Fracture Toughness of
Through-Thickness Reinforced Composites, NTC Project: F04-MD12,
National Textile Center Annual Report. (2004) 1–7.
[204] I. Van de Weyenberg, T. Chi Truong, B. Vangrimde, I. Verpoest,

Improving the properties of UD flax fibre reinforced composites by
applying an alkaline fibre treatment, Composites Part A: Applied
[205] J. George, J.I. Verpoest I., Mechanical properties of flax fibre

reinforced epoxy composites, Die Angewandte Makromolekulare
Chemie. 272 (1999) 41–45. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1522-
9505(19991201)272:1<41::AID-APMC41>3.0.CO;2-X.
[206] I. Van de Weyenberg, J. Ivens, A. De Coster, B. Kino, E. Baetens, I.

Verpoest, Influence of processing and chemical treatment of flax fibres
on their composites, Composites Science and Technology. 63 (2003)
1241–1246. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(03)00093-9.
[207] D.B. Dittenber, H.V.S. GangaRao, Critical review of recent

publications on use of natural composites in infrastructure, Composites
Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing. 43 (2012) 1419–1429.
[208] G. Kretsis, A review of the tensile, compressive, flexural and shear

properties of hybrid fibre-reinforced plastics, Composites. 18 (1987)
13–23. doi:10.1016/0010-4361(87)90003-6.
[209] I.S. Aji, E.S. Zainudin, K. Abdan, S.M. Sapuan, M.D. Khairul,
Mechanical properties and water absorption behavior of hybridized
kenaf/pineapple leaf fibre-reinforced high-density polyethylene
composite, Journal of Composite Materials. 47 (2013) 979–990.
doi:10.1177/0021998312444147.
[210] F. Sarasini, J. Tirillò, M. Valente, T. Valente, S. Cioffi, S. Iannace, L.

Sorrentino, Effect of basalt fiber hybridization on the impact behavior
under low impact velocity of glass/basalt woven fabric/epoxy resin
composites, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing.
218 References
[211] I.M. De Rosa, Post-impact mechanical characterisation of E-glass/basalt

woven fabric interply hybrid laminates, Express Polymer Letters. 5
(2011) 449–459. doi:10.3144/expresspolymlett.2011.43.
[212] C. Santulli, Impact properties of glass/plant fibre hybrid laminates, J

Mater Sci. 42 (2007) 3699–3707. doi:10.1007/s10853-006-0662-y.
[213] A. Arbelaiz, B. Fernández, G. Cantero, R. Llano-Ponte, A. Valea, I.

Mondragon, Mechanical properties of flax fibre/polypropylene
composites. Influence of fibre/matrix modification and glass fibre
hybridization, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing.
[214] M.S. Sreekala, J. George, M.G. Kumaran, S. Thomas, The mechanical

performance of hybrid phenol-formaldehyde-based composites
reinforced with glass and oil palm fibres, Composites Science and
Technology. 62 (2002) 339–353. doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(01)00219-6.
[215] J. Flynn, A. Amiri, C. Ulven, Hybridized carbon and flax fiber

composites for tailored performance, Materials & Design. 102 (2016)
21–29. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2016.03.164.
[216] H.N. Dhakal, Z.Y. Zhang, R. Guthrie, J. MacMullen, N. Bennett,

Development of flax/carbon fibre hybrid composites for enhanced
properties, Carbohydrate Polymers. 96 (2013) 1–8.
doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.03.074.
[217] Z.S. Bagheri, I. El Sawi, E.H. Schemitsch, R. Zdero, H. Bougherara,

Biomechanical properties of an advanced new carbon/flax/epoxy
composite material for bone plate applications, Journal of the
Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 20 (2013) 398–406.
doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2012.12.013.
[218] E. Nisini, C. Santulli, A. Liverani, Mechanical and impact

characterization of hybrid composite laminates with carbon, basalt and
flax fibres, Composites Part B: Engineering. (2016).
[219] V.A. Patel, B.D. Bhuva, P.H. Parsania, Performance Evaluation of

Treated—Untreated Jute—Carbon and Glass—Carbon Hybrid
Composites of Bisphenol-C based Mixed Epoxy—Phenolic Resins,
doi:10.1177/0731684408093973.
[220] Y. Swolfs, L. Gorbatikh, I. Verpoest, Fibre hybridisation in polymer

composites: A review, Composites Part A: Applied Science and
Manufacturing. 67 (2014) 181–200.
References 219
[221] N. Ghafari-Namini, H. Ghasemnejad, Effect of natural stitched

composites on the crashworthiness of box structures, Materials &
Design. 39 (2012) 484–494. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2012.03.025.
[222] B. Blackman, A. Kinloch, Fracture tests on structural adhesive joints,

in: A.P. and J.G.W. D.R. Moore (Ed.), European Structural Integrity
Society, Elsevier, 2001: pp. 225–267.
[223] D30 Committee, Standard Test Method for In-Plane Shear Response of
Polymer Matrix Composite Materials by Tensile Test of a ±45°
Laminate, ASTM International, 2013.
220 Calculation of Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness (G IC) using DCB test data
Appendix A
Calculation of Mode I interlaminar fracture
toughness (GIC) using DCB test data
This Annex presents three data reduction methods used for calculating
interlaminar fracture toughness (GIC) of un/stitched flax fiber composites
laminates according to ASTM D5528-01 [173]. These methods are known as
modified beam theory (MBT), a compliance calibration method (CC) and a
modified compliance calibration method (MCC). None of these three methods
are clearly superior to the others since the discrepancy in the determined values
of GIC is less than 3.1%. Nevertheless, the MBT method normally yielded the
most conservative values of GIC for 80 % of the specimens tested, as stated by
ASTM D5528.
The data required for the analysis are the crack (delamination) length, a, the
corresponding loads, P, and crack opening displacements, d, which are obtained
from the DCB test. An Initial loading-unloading cycle should also perform to
let the crack propagate 3 to 5 mm from the pre-delamination insert so as to create
a naturally sharp crack tip. The following values should be determined from the
load-displacement curve.
Initiation values:
Appendix A 221
The crack length and the corresponding load and crack opening displacement
of the following initiation values should be determined in order to calculate the
initiation GIC:
o Deviation from linearity (NL): The point of deviation from linearity, is
determined by drawing a straight line from the origin but ignoring any
initial deviations due to the take-up of play in the loading system.
o Visual observation (VIS): The point corresponds to the onset of crack
growth. In other words, the first point at which the crack is observed to
start moving.
o 5% or MAX: The 5% value corresponds to the point on the load-
displacement curve at which the compliance has increased by 5% of its
initial value. A best straight line is drawn to determine the initial
compliance (ignoring any initial deviation). A new line is then drawn
with a compliance equal to additional 5%, and the intersection of this
new line with the load-displacement curve marked. Whichever point
provides maximum value of load that is the point to be used.
Propagation values:
During delamination propagation, the crack length and the corresponding loads
and opening displacements values (PROP in Figure A.1) should also be
determined. These values are used for calculation of propagation GIC.
These imitation and propagation points are illustrated on the load-displacement
curve of Figure A.1. In the case of unstable stick-slip propagation, only the first
initiation value of the crack length and the crack lengths at subsequent arrest
points can be recorded. For the critical value of the Mode I strain energy release
rate (GIC), the initiation values are taken into consideration (The points ‘i’ in
Figure).
(a) (b)
Figure A.1. (a) Imitation and propagation values on load-displacement curve of the DCB test;
(b) Schematic force-displacement curve for a DCB specimen, exhibiting unstable ‘stick-slip’
crack growth behavior. (‘i’ indicates initiation points, ‘a’ indicates arrest points.) [222].
A.1 Modified Beam Theory (MBT) Method
For the simple beam theory, the value of strain energy release rate (GI) of a
perfectly built-in is calculated via:
3𝑃𝛿
𝐺𝐼 = (A.1)
2𝑏𝑎
where
P = load,
δ = load point displacement,
b = specimen width, and
a = delamination length.
However, the simple beam theory expression for the compliance of a perfectly
built-in DCB specimen does underestimate the compliance as the beam is not
perfectly built-in. A means of correcting for this effect is to treat the DCB as if
Appendix A 223
it contained a slightly longer delamination, 𝑎 + |∆| , where ∆ may be
determined experimentally by generating a least-squares plot of the cube root
of compliance, C1/3, as a function of delamination length (Figure A.2a). Here,
the compliance C is the ratio of the crack opening displacement to applied load
(δ/P). The values used to generate this plot should be the load and displacements
corresponding to the visually observed delamination onset on the edge and all
the propagation values. So, the GI value is calculated as follows:
3𝑃𝛿
𝐺𝐼 =
2𝑏(𝑎 + |∆|) (A.2)
A.2 Compliance Calibration (CC) Method
An alternative approach to correct the simple beam method is to plot the
logarithm of the compliance C, or of the normalized compliance, C/N, versus
the logarithm of the crack length a as shown in Figure A.2b. It is noteworthy
that only the propagation values are used for the linear fits, and all the initiation
values are not considered in the regression analysis. Calculation of the GI value
is as follows:
3𝑛𝑃𝛿
𝐺𝐼 = (A.3)
2𝑏𝑎
where 𝑛 is the slope of log (𝛿𝑖 /𝑃𝑖 ) versus log (𝑎𝑖 ) line.
A.3 Modified Compliance Calibration (MCC) Method
In this method, the slope (𝐴1 ) of the least squares plot of the delamination length
normalized by specimen thickness, a/h, versus the cube root of compliance, C1/3
is used to calibrate the beam theory method (Figure A.2c). Calculation of the
GI value is as follows
3𝑃 2 𝐶 2/3
𝐺𝐼 =
2𝐴1 𝑏ℎ (A.4)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure A.2. Definition of correction factors for different data reduction methods; (a) MBT. (b)
CC, (c) MCC [173].
Appendix B
Table B.1. Tensile properties of unstitched and stitched woven flax fiber composites.
composites
Tensile Strength [MPa] Tensile Stiffness [GPa]
Appendix B
Lamina Stitch Stitch Areal Fraction Failure Strain

Laminate
preform material x10-2 [%]
Between 0.1% - 0.3% strain Between 0.1% - 0.3% strain
PW0* Unstitched 0 87.2 (9)† 7.91 (13) 1.62 (3)
PWC1 Cotton 0.46 78.6 (10) 7.82 (12) 1.58 (14)
PWC2 Cotton 0.92 82.1 (10) 8.14 (14) 1.75 (14)
Flax
PWC3 Cotton 1.22 77.3 (11) 7.21 (16) 1.53 (10)
4×4Plain
PWC4 Cotton 1.83 74.3 (12) 7.03 (14) 1.57 (16)
Weave
2 PWF1 Flax 0.69 84.1 (9) 8.02 (12) 1.6 (4)
(500 g/m )
PWF2 Flax 1.03 80.1 (12) 7.87 (10) 1.51 (6)
PWF3 Flax 1.38 75.2 (13) 7.19 (17) 1.47 (6)
PWF4 Flax 2.06 70.5 (15) 6.92 (18) 1.47 (10)
†Values in bracket represent coefficient of variation (CoV%), defined as the ratio of the standard deviation to the average value (in percentage).
* 𝑉𝑓 = 31% for woven flax fiber composites.
Mechanical Properties and Mode I fracture
toughness of unstitched and stitched flax fiber
225
226
Table B.2. Flexural properties of unstitched and stitched woven flax fiber composites.
Flexural Strength [MPa] Flexural Modulus [GPa] Flexural Failure

Lamina Stitch Stitch Areal Fraction
Laminate Strain
preform material x10-2
Between 0.3% - 0.5% strain Between 0.3% - 0.5% strain [%]
PW0* Unstitched 0 125.7 (10)† 5.81 (9) 3.40 (7)
PWC1 Cotton 0.46 116.5 (6) 5.32 (3) 2.88 (7)
PWC2 Cotton 0.92 120.3 (5) 5.72 (7) 2.98 (5)
Flax
PWC3 Cotton 1.22 124.1 (8) 6.01 (6) 3.11 (3)
4×4Plain
PWC4 Cotton 1.83 120.1 (7) 6.22 (9) 2.92 (5)
Weave
2 PWF1 Flax 0.69 123.4 (9) 5.96 (7) 3.04 (4)
(500 g/m )
PWF2 Flax 1.03 121.9 (11) 5.89 (10) 3.01 (5)
PWF3 Flax 1.38 115.6 (12) 5.94 (12) 2.77 (8)
PWF4 Flax 2.06 110.1 (11) 6.06 (10) 2.54 (5)
* 𝑉𝑓 = 31% for woven flax fiber composites.
Calculation of Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness (G IC) using DCB test data
Appendix B
Table B.1. Detailed G IC values measured through DCB test of flax and glass fiber laminates.
Stitch Areal GIC – Minimum of initiation [J/m2] GIC – Propagation [J/m2]

Stitch
Lamina preform Laminate Fraction
material
x10-2 MBT CC MCC MBT CC MCC
PW0* Unstitched 0 1827 (8)† 1891 (8) 1931 (8) 3185 (15) 3222 (15) 3226 (15)
PWC1 Cotton 0.46 1763 (9) 1797 (10) 1832 (10) 3224 (19) 3295 (19) 3317 (19)
PWC2 Cotton 0.92 1944 (11) 2008 (12) 2028 (12) 3252 (22) 3305 (22) 3336 (22)
Flax 4×4Plain PWC3 Cotton 1.22 2065 (13) 2098 (13) 2143 (13) 3338 (19) 3368 (19) 3392 (19)
Weave PWC4 Cotton 1.83 2092 (13) 2157 (13) 2170 (13) 3320 (21) 3402 (21) 3444 (21)
(500 g/m2) PWF1 Flax 0.69 2037 (12) 2094 (13) 2127 (13) 3490 (23) 3504 (22) 3597 (22)
PWF2 Flax 1.03 2203 (15) 2297 (15) 2308 (15) 3693 (22) 3708 (22) 3710 (22)
PWF3 Flax 1.38 2394 (21) 2457 (21) 2471 (21) 3713 (23) 3765 (23) 3772 (23)
PWF4 Flax 2.06 2512 (23) 2590 (23) 2612 (23) 3860 (25) 3945 (25) 3960(25)
Flax UD UD0 Unstitched 0 771 (6) 789 (6) 803 (5) 1274 (6) 1308 (6) 1313 (5)
(110 g/m2) UDF Flax 1.38 1344 (12) 1401 (14) 1392 (14) 2223 (13) 2298 (15) 2289 (14)
Glass UD glass Unstitched 0 316 (5) 324 (4) 322 (4) 681 (2) 682 (2) 681 (2)
* 𝑉𝑓 = 31% for woven flax composites, 𝑉𝑓 = 40% for UD flax composites, and 𝑉𝑓 = 61% for UD glass fiber composite.
227
228 Testing for shear damage parameter of woven flax fiber composite (d12)
Appendix C
Testing for shear damage parameter of woven
flax fiber composite (d12)
This appendix presents the experimental procedure for determining the shear
damage parameter of the woven flax fabric composite which is used in the FEM
analysis of this study to model the in-plane material behavior of matrix. This
method follows the procedure proposed by Johnson [158] and ASTM D3518
[223].
As discussed previously in Chapter 7, it is assumed that failure in principle fiber
directions (tension and compression) and in-plane shear are decoupled. The
elastic constants (E11, E22, v21) and strength of the material along the fiber
directions under tension and compression ( 𝑋𝑇± , 𝑋𝐶± ) loading can be easily
measured by the standard uniaxial tensile/compression test of composite in fiber
directions, where the fiber failure is the predominant failure mode. The damage
evolution in the fiber failure modes is accomplished based on the corresponding
fracture toughness which may be determined experimentally
(tension/compression failure of composite along the fiber directions).
The in-plane shear response of the laminate is characterized by means of a cyclic
tensile loading at 45° to the principle fiber directions, since the monotonic
loading is not sufficient to determine all the parameters needed to model the
elastic-plastic response and damage evolution. Here, it is assumed that the
effects of strain along the fiber directions on the shear response is negligible.
Figure C.1 shows the tensile test on a ±45 layup of woven flax fiber laminate.
Appendix C 229
𝜎12
𝜎12
-45 ° +45°
Figure C.1. Tensile test of the woven flax fiber laminate with ±45 layup to measure the shear
response.
The shear response of the woven flax reinforced composite under monotonic
and cyclic loading, which was obtained with six load-unload cycles, are
compared in Figure C.2. The in-plane shear response (stress and strain) was
measured in accordance with test method D3518 [223]. The slight difference
between the stress levels of the monotonic and cyclic test can be attributed to
stress relaxation due to material plasticity. In what follows, the result of cyclic
loading is used to calibrate the parameters of the shear damage and plasticity
model.
Monotonic loading C4 C5 C6
50
Cyclic loading C3
40 C2
Shear stress, σ12 (MPa)
30
C1
20
10 (1 − 𝑑12 )𝐺12
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Shear strain, ε12 (%)
𝑝𝑙 𝑒𝑙
𝜀12 𝜀12
Figure C.2. Measured monotonic and cyclic shear stress-strain curves for Woven flax/epoxy
laminate.
As can be seen from Figure C.2, the total strain 𝜀12 at each cycle can be written
𝑒𝑙 𝑝𝑙
as the sum of an elastic 𝜀12 and plastic 𝜀12 strain component, given as:
𝑒𝑙 𝑝𝑙
𝜀12 = 𝜀12 + 𝜀12
(C.1)
The elastic shear strain component can be calculate (form the unloading curve)
using the linear elastic concept as
𝑒𝑙
𝜎12
𝜀12 = 𝑠𝑒𝑐
𝐺12
(C.2)
𝑠𝑒𝑐
in which 𝐺12 is the secant shear modulus at each unloading cycle. The shear
damage parameter 𝑑12 can be measured form the ratio of the secant (damaged)
shear modulus to the undamaged (initial) elastic modulus 𝐺12 as

Appendix C 231
𝑠𝑒𝑐
𝐺12 = 𝐺12 (1 − 𝑑12 )
(C.3)
The shear damage parameter 𝑑12 can be determined from the measured applied
stress level and elastic shear strain using Eq. (C.2) and Eq. (C.3). Thus, the stress
- damage values (𝜎12 , 𝑑12 ) pairs can be calculated for each (linear) unloading
curve. However, representing the damager parameter against the stress values
is not a proper basis to provide an accurate linear model of test data. A simple
function of the stress which gives a reasonably accurate linear model for the
damage parameter is a logarithmic function of stress, ln(𝜎̃12 ), where 𝜎̃12 =
𝜎12 /(1 − 𝑑12 ) is the effective linear elastic stress. Figure A.3 shows the shear
damage parameter against ln(𝜎̃12 ) measured at each loading cycle and a linear
fit to the test data. The damage evolution constant 𝛼12 and the shear yield stress
threshold 𝑆 are obtained from the gradient of the fitted line to the data and its
intersection with the horizontal axis, respectively.
0.7
𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑑12 ≤1
0.6
0.5
0.4
d12
0.3
𝛼12
0.2
0.1
0
2.7 3.7 4.7 5.7 6.7
ln( 12)
Figure C.3. Elastic shear damage evolution against 𝑙𝑛 (𝜎̃12 ) for calibration of the damage
parameters 𝛼12 and 𝑆 for the woven flax fiber laminate.
To determine the plastic hardening function under shear deformation, the
𝑝𝑙
accumulated plastic strain has to be determined. The plastic strain 𝜀12
attributable to each loading cycle, is obtained from the residual deformation
𝑝𝑙
after each unloading cycle (Figure C.2). The values of 𝜀12 are then used to plot
against the corresponding effective shear stress 𝜎̃12 at the onset of unloading to
determine the shear hardening function, as shown in Figure C.4 As can be seen,
𝑝𝑙 𝐾
the test data point are well fitted by the power law function, 𝜎̃𝑦0 + 𝐶(𝜀12 ) ,
with calibrated plasticity parameters of 𝐶 and 𝐾. The value of the hardening
function at a zero plastic strain (intersection with the vertical axis) is the
inelastic threshold shear stress 𝜎̃𝑦0 .
140
120
100
̃12 (Mpa)
𝐾
𝑝𝑙
80 𝜎̃𝑦0 + 𝐶 𝜀12
60
σ
40
20 Experimental
Series1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
l
12 ( )
Figure C.4. Plastic hardening function in shear for the woven flax fiber composite.
Appendix C 233
The shear elastic properties and aforementioned damage parameters obtained
from the cyclic shear test of the woven flax fiber laminate are summarized in
Table C.1.
Table C.1. Shear elastic properties and calibrated shear damage constants of the woven flax
fiber composite.
𝜎̃𝑦0 (𝑀𝑃𝑎) 𝑚𝑎𝑥

𝐺12 (𝐺𝑃𝑎) 𝑆 (𝑀𝑃𝑎) 𝑑12 𝛼12 𝐶 𝐾
3.97 19.71 23.9 0.63 0.32 68 0.45

1-Ravandi - QUASI-STATIC AND IMPACT CHARACTERIZATIONS OF STITCHED FLAX FIBER COMPOSITES PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1-Ravandi - QUASI-STATIC AND IMPACT CHARACTERIZATIONS OF STITCHED FLAX FIBER COMPOSITES PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

QUASI-STATIC AND IMPACT

CHARACTERIZATIONS OF STITCHED FLAX

(M.Sc. (Hons), Amirkabir University of Technology, Iran)

me in its entirety. I have duly acknowledged all the sources of information

which have been used in the thesis.

Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to my

for their continuous support, motivation, guidance and advice throughout my

accomplished without all of their invaluable supports. Besides my supervisors,

experiences on natural fiber composites as well as his helpful discussions.

without a single one of them. I express my warm thanks to Dr. Ridha

the long hours of lab work.

My heartfelt thanks to all my friends in applied mechanics group of National

funding this project and the four-year scholarship.

as well as for all of the sacrifices you made for me.

Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................ 1

Chapter 2 A Literature review.................................................................... 8

Chapter 3 Experimental Methodology ..................................................... 59

Chapter 4 Mechanical and fracture properties of stitched

Chapter 5 Numerical modeling of Mode I interlaminar failure of

Chapter 6 Low-velocity impact performance of stitched flax/epoxy

Chapter 7 Numerical analysis of low-velocity impact on woven

References ……………………………………………………………………….. 199

environmental impact, make suitable reinforcements in polymer composites for

moderate load-bearing applications. The composite mechanical properties are

plane properties and damage tolerance of conventional laminated composites,

stitching has been recognized as a convenient and cost-effective technique.

However, the effectiveness of stitching natural fiber preforms to improve the

performance of resin infused natural fiber laminated composites have yet to be

widely investigated. Modeling of damage development in continuous natural

fiber composites is also fairly uncommon at this moment.

This thesis reports a comprehensive study on the effects of through-the-

of flax fiber/epoxy composite laminates. Woven fabric and unidirectional

of composites with various stitch areal densities were experimentally

determined, followed by transverse impact tests on the optimally stitched woven

fiber composites. A finite element model of a double-cantilever-beam test was

successfully developed to give accurate predictions of delamination propagation

node beam elements, respectively. A finite element modeling of the drop-weight

material behavior, damage development, and impact fracture resistance.

cotton threads to enhance the quasi-static interlaminar fracture toughness of

flax/epoxy composites. However, the stitch-induced defects also lowered the

tensile properties and transverse impact resistance of the composites

substantially. Damage development tends to be dominated by both fiber and

matrix fractures, resulting in the fracture and energy absorption mechanisms

𝐴𝑠 Average cross-section area of the stitch

Table 2.2. Chemical, morphological and mechanical properties of some

natural fibers used for reinforcing polymers [1,39,45,57–62].

manufactured composite laminates.

Table 6.2. Information of Impact test and specimen’s thickness.

Table 6.3. Summary of impact test results.

Table 7.1. Material properties used in numerical modeling.

Figure 1.1. Schematic outline of this thesis.

Figure 2.1. Classification of reinforcing fibers (reproduced from [40]).

Figure 2.2. The performance and corresponding applications of composites

fibers (adapted from [44]).

were reproduced from [44,54]).

Figure 2.6. Comparison of the absolute and specific tensile properties of

natural fiber composites with E-glass composites [5].

yarns as a function of twist level [74].

Figure 2.9. Comparison of static and post-fatigue tensile properties of flax–

tensile modulus and (b) the ultimate tensile strength [8].

Figure 2.10. Classification of natural fiber treatment methods [1].

manufactured using different techniques [46].

non-penetrated and (b) penetrated laminate [87].