journal article·2025-03-10Open access

Mechanical properties of open‐hole unidirectional laminates: Hybridization of jute unidirectional fabrics with glass fabrics

André Lima Flores, Thamires Alves da Silveira, Lucas Leal Agne, Andrey Pereira Acosta, Maikson Luiz Passaia Tonatto, Rafael de Avila Delucis, Sandro Campos Amico

Polymer Composites· Volume 46· Issue 4

Abstract

Abstract This study examines the mechanical properties of open‐hole unidirectional laminates by hybridizing jute and glass fabrics. Characterization involved microscopy, thickness variation, density measurements, tensile, and flexural tests. Numerical models were developed for each configuration, validated by experimental data, with a VUMAT subroutine implemented in ABAQUS/Explicit™ to simulate progressive damage using the 3D Hashin criteria. Results showed voids in the interphase regions of both jute‐based and hybrid laminates, indicating that jute fibers contribute to void formation. Thickness varied with the number of hybrid interfaces, with the glass laminate (G5) being thinnest, while jute and hybrid laminates (JGJGJ, JGGGJ and J5) were thicker. Density variation was influenced by the fiber types and their respective densities. Tensile tests revealed lower strength and modulus in jute laminates compared to glass. Open holes reduced tensile properties across laminates, except for G5. Numerical‐experimental tensile strength differences ranged from 0.5% to 6.1% (without hole) and 3.7% to 64.0% (with hole). Open‐hole laminates also showed reduced flexural strength but maintained a consistent flexural modulus. Numerical and experimental results for jute and hybrid laminates matched closely, with differences from 0.02% to 19.5%. Failure modes during tensile and flexural tests provided important insights into laminate behavior. Highlights Hybridization of jute and glass fibers led to void formation in interphase regions. Thickness variation in laminates influenced by the number of hybrid interfaces. Density variation primarily influenced by fiber types and their densities. Bi‐component jute laminates showed lower tensile properties compared to glass laminates. Open holes resulted in decreased tensile properties, except for G5‐H laminate. Failure modes during tensile testing provided valuable insights into laminate behavior. Open‐hole laminates exhibited reduced flexural strength with similar flexural modulus.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Textile materials and evaluations · Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites · Mechanical Behavior of Composites

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Postgraduate Program in Mining, Metallurgical and Materials Engineering Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul Porto Alegre Brazil

Postgraduate Program in Materials Science and Engineering Technological Development Center, Federal University of Pelotas Pelotas Brazil

Group on Mechanics of Materials and Structures (GMEC) Federal University of Santa Maria Cachoeira do Sul Brazil

Postgraduate Program in Materials Science and Engineering (PIPE) Federal University of Paraná Curitiba Brazil

Postgraduate Program in Mechanical Engineering Federal University of Santa Maria Cachoeira do Sul Brazil

References (52)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1002/pc.2604510.1002/pc.26045 ↗
2. 10.3390/polym1308132310.3390/polym13081323 ↗
3. 10.3390/ma1503105510.3390/ma15031055 ↗
4. 10.1038/srep0783710.1038/srep07837 ↗
5. 10.1007/s12649-021-01394-110.1007/s12649-021-01394-1 ↗
6. 10.1080/15440478.2023.217858610.1080/15440478.2023.2178586 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.jobe.2022.10561910.1016/j.jobe.2022.105619 ↗
8. 10.1177/073168441351751910.1177/0731684413517519 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.11504610.1016/j.compstruct.2021.115046 ↗
10. 10.1007/s12289-021-01624-w10.1007/s12289-021-01624-w ↗
11. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.11556610.1016/j.compstruct.2022.115566 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11349610.1016/j.compstruct.2020.113496 ↗
13. Delucis R d A · 2022 · 291
14. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.10714910.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107149 ↗
15. 10.14314/polimery.2021.1.510.14314/polimery.2021.1.5 ↗
16. 10.1007/s10924-010-0210-310.1007/s10924-010-0210-3 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.12.00410.1016/j.compositesb.2012.12.004 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.tws.2023.11064910.1016/j.tws.2023.110649 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.04.01610.1016/j.compositesa.2008.04.016 ↗
20. AlhijaziM ZeeshanQ QinZ SafaeiB AsmaelM.Finite Element Analysis of Natural Fibers Composites: A Review Nanotechnology Reviews. [S.l.]: De Gruyter Open Ltd.2020.10.1515/ntrev-2020-0069 ↗
21. The behavior of banyan (B)/Banana (Ba) fibers reinforced hybrid composites influenced by chemical treatment on tensile, bending and water absorption behavior: an experimental and FEA investigation
22. Saravana BavanD KumarGCM.Finite Element Analysis of a Natural Fiber (Maize) Composite Beam.2013;2013:1‐7.10.1155/2013/450381 ↗
23. 10.5505/pajes.2019.8886410.5505/pajes.2019.88864 ↗
24. 10.1007/s12008-022-00915-z10.1007/s12008-022-00915-z ↗
25. 10.1007/s40033-023-00601-810.1007/s40033-023-00601-8 ↗
26. 10.1177/1528083722112193910.1177/15280837221121939 ↗
27. Thermomechanical properties and microstructure of fluorinated ethylene propylene reinforced with multi‐walled carbon nanotubes
28. 10.1177/073168440934080610.1177/0731684409340806 ↗
29. 10.3390/polym1421474210.3390/polym14214742 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.01.03110.1016/j.compositesb.2017.01.031 ↗
31. Interlaminar shear strength and tensile properties of environmentally‐friendly fiber metal laminates reinforced by hybrid basalt and jute fibers10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.02.002 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2012.01.00310.1016/j.compositesa.2012.01.003 ↗
33. 10.1007/s00170-018-2467-y10.1007/s00170-018-2467-y ↗
34. 10.1002/app.4720310.1002/app.47203 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.06.00710.1016/j.compositesa.2015.06.007 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2016.05.01010.1016/j.compscitech.2016.05.010 ↗
37. 10.1016/0266-3538(95)00024-010.1016/0266-3538(95)00024-0 ↗
38. 10.1177/073168441772735810.1177/0731684417727358 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2014.03.00710.1016/j.compscitech.2014.03.007 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.coco.2020.04.00410.1016/j.coco.2020.04.004 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.11429910.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114299 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.06.00810.1016/j.compstruct.2013.06.008 ↗
43. 10.1002/app.5386210.1002/app.53862 ↗
44. 10.3390/polym1510227610.3390/polym15102276 ↗
45. 10.1007/s12206-021-0217-910.1007/s12206-021-0217-9 ↗
46. Pinned hybrid glass‐flax composite laminates aged in salt‐fog environment: mechanical durability
47. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.09.04210.1016/j.compositesb.2013.09.042 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.10692110.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.106921 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.05.08210.1016/j.compositesb.2017.05.082 ↗
50. 10.3390/ma1606221310.3390/ma16062213 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.08.01010.1016/j.compstruct.2009.08.010 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.10469210.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.104692 ↗