journal article·2026-06-20

Mechanical and Dynamic Analysis of PLA ‐ PBS Biocomposites Reinforced With Flax Fibers: A Comparison Study of Injection Molding and FGF ‐ 3D Printing

Nihel Ketata, Saker Messaoui, Noamen Guermazi, Marie‐Laetitia Pastor, Bastien Seantier, Yves Grohens

Polymer Composites· Volume 47· Issue S2
Publisher page

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study investigates the mechanical, thermal, and dynamic behavior of polylactic acid (PLA)/poly(butylene succinate) (PBS) biopolymer blend processed by injection molding (IM) and fused granular fabrication (FGF 3D printing), with and without 20 wt% short flax fibers. Morphological analysis, fiber length distribution, differential scanning calorimetry, and dynamic mechanical analysis were conducted to highlight how processing methods affect fiber integrity and the resulting biocomposite properties. The results show that the incorporation of 20 wt% flax fibers significantly increases the melting enthalpy from 30.75 to 45.30 J/g and the degree of crystallinity from 41.33% to 60.92%. In addition, PLA‐PBS pellets containing 20 wt% short flax fibers were successfully processed and printed via FGF. The average fibers length was higher in injection‐molded samples (930 μm) than in 3D‐printed ones (659 μm), indicating that injection molding better preserves fiber integrity and thus provides more efficient reinforcement. IM‐FF/PLA‐PBS retained a higher proportion of long fibers, with 30% exceeding 1 mm, compared to only 16% in 3D‐FF/PLA‐PBS samples. Consequently, IM‐FF/PLA‐PBS specimens showed enhanced mechanical performance, with higher stiffness ( E = 4.90 GPa) and tensile strength ( σ = 42.4 MPa) than their 3D‐FF/PLA‐PBS counterparts ( E = 2.22 GPa, σ = 11.5 MPa). Furthermore, DMA results revealed higher storage moduli for IM‐FF/PLA‐PBS (3620 MPa) compared to 3D‐FF/PLA‐PBS (800 MPa), confirming increased stiffness and improved fiber–matrix adhesion. However, 3D‐FF/PLA‐PBS and 3D‐PLA‐PBS yielded lighter components, advantageous for weight‐critical applications. Overall, these findings highlight the significant influence of processing techniques on biocomposite performance.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites · biodegradable polymer synthesis and properties · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies

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

Affiliations

University Bretagne Sud, CNRS, UMR 6027, IRDL Lorient France

LGME Lab, National Engineering School of Sfax (ENIS) University of Sfax Sfax Tunisia

National Higher School of Engineers of Tunis (ENSIT), University of Tunis Tunis Tunisia

Higher Institute of Applied Sciences and Technology (ISSAT) of Kasserine, University of Kairouan Kasserine Tunisia

University Toulouse, UTTOP, IMT Albi, INSA Toulouse, ISAE‐SUPAERO, CNRS, ICA Tarbes France

University Institute of Technology of Tarbes, University of Technology Tarbes Occitanie Pyrénées UTTOP Tarbes France

References (78)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.jcomc.2021.10022010.1016/j.jcomc.2021.100220 ↗
2. 10.1080/15440478.2024.240645710.1080/15440478.2024.2406457 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.10.49310.1016/j.matpr.2021.10.493 ↗
4. Hygrothermal Effect on Moisture Kinetics, Mechanical Behaviour and Interfacial Properties of Alfa Fiber/Polypropylene Composites
5. 10.1016/S1359-835X(02)00040-410.1016/S1359-835X(02)00040-4 ↗
6. 10.1002/pls2.1017210.1002/pls2.10172 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2005.03.02110.1016/j.compositesa.2005.03.021 ↗
8. 10.1177/002199831456857610.1177/0021998314568576 ↗
9. Ketata N. · 2024 · 132
10. 10.1007/978-3-031-65007-9_1610.1007/978-3-031-65007-9_16 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2014.09.03310.1016/j.indcrop.2014.09.033 ↗
12. 10.1016/S0266-3538(03)00103-910.1016/S0266-3538(03)00103-9 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.01.04510.1016/j.indcrop.2016.01.045 ↗
14. Compatibility of Biodegradable Poly(Lactic Acid) (PLA) and Poly(Butylene Succinate) (PBS) Blends for Packaging Application
15. 10.1002/pi.470010.1002/pi.4700 ↗
16. 10.1002/cplu.20230071410.1002/cplu.202300714 ↗
17. 10.1007/s00170-020-05849-y10.1007/s00170-020-05849-y ↗
18. 10.3390/polym1612161910.3390/polym16121619 ↗
19. 10.1007/s11665-021-05889-910.1007/s11665-021-05889-9 ↗
20. 10.1002/pc.2655010.1002/pc.26550 ↗
21. 10.1007/s10924-023-02816-y10.1007/s10924-023-02816-y ↗
22. 10.1177/089270571877286710.1177/0892705718772867 ↗
23. P. F.Mukoroh F.Gouda M.Skrifvars et al. “3D Printing and Injection Molding of Biobased Polymer and Biocomposite; and the Effect of Manufacturing Methods and the Printing Layer Thickness on Mechanical Behavior and Water Absorption ”2024 https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202401.0251/v1.10.20944/preprints202401.0251.v1 ↗
24. 10.1108/RPJ-06-2018-014910.1108/RPJ-06-2018-0149 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.mtsust.2019.10002710.1016/j.mtsust.2019.100027 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.apmt.2021.10107810.1016/j.apmt.2021.101078 ↗
27. 10.15671/hjbc.105376410.15671/hjbc.1053764 ↗
28. 10.1007/s40962-023-00989-910.1007/s40962-023-00989-9 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2024.10839010.1016/j.polymertesting.2024.108390 ↗
30. 10.3390/inventions304007810.3390/inventions3040078 ↗
31. 10.1007/s00170-022-08860-710.1007/s00170-022-08860-7 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.matpr.2019.12.03610.1016/j.matpr.2019.12.036 ↗
33. 10.3390/fib1001000210.3390/fib10010002 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2025.10898610.1016/j.polymertesting.2025.108986 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.jmapro.2022.09.03210.1016/j.jmapro.2022.09.032 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.wpi.2015.07.00310.1016/j.wpi.2015.07.003 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.matlet.2014.02.03010.1016/j.matlet.2014.02.030 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.01.04710.1016/j.matpr.2022.01.047 ↗
39. ASTM Committee D‐20 on Plastics. Section D20. 70.01 · 1991
40. 10.3390/ma1302029710.3390/ma13020297 ↗
41. 10.1177/0731684424123296010.1177/07316844241232960 ↗
42. 10.1177/0021998324125575110.1177/00219983241255751 ↗
43. 10.1007/s10443-021-09890-210.1007/s10443-021-09890-2 ↗
44. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2009.10.00910.1016/j.compscitech.2009.10.009 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.protcy.2015.02.03910.1016/j.protcy.2015.02.039 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2024.10838310.1016/j.polymertesting.2024.108383 ↗
47. 10.1002/app.4975210.1002/app.49752 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.matdes.2016.02.01810.1016/j.matdes.2016.02.018 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.addma.2022.10316610.1016/j.addma.2022.103166 ↗
50. 10.7569/JRM.2014.63412710.7569/JRM.2014.634127 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2013.03.00610.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2013.03.006 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.addma.2019.10096210.1016/j.addma.2019.100962 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.01.08510.1016/j.compositesb.2019.01.085 ↗
54. 10.3390/ma1303067210.3390/ma13030672 ↗
55. 10.1007/s10924-014-0689-010.1007/s10924-014-0689-0 ↗
56. 10.1016/j.addma.2018.04.03910.1016/j.addma.2018.04.039 ↗
57. 10.1038/srep2305810.1038/srep23058 ↗
58. 10.1016/j.matpr.2017.02.23610.1016/j.matpr.2017.02.236 ↗
59. 10.1016/j.addma.2015.02.00110.1016/j.addma.2015.02.001 ↗
60. Mechanical Performance of Bio‐Based Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites: A Review
61. 10.1016/j.susmat.2023.e0062010.1016/j.susmat.2023.e00620 ↗
62. 10.1007/s10924-008-0102-y10.1007/s10924-008-0102-y ↗
63. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.08.00310.1016/j.compositesa.2008.08.003 ↗
64. 10.1007/s10924-017-1064-810.1007/s10924-017-1064-8 ↗
65. 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2008.01.00810.1016/j.eurpolymj.2008.01.008 ↗
66. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.02710.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.027 ↗
67. 10.1177/152808371773610210.1177/1528083717736102 ↗
68. 10.1002/pc.2406910.1002/pc.24069 ↗
69. Y.Lebaupin “Comportement à l'impact et post‐impact d'un composite lin/polyamide 11 élaboré par thermocompression ”master's thesis.
70. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2006.05.00310.1016/j.compositesb.2006.05.003 ↗
71. 10.1080/0360255090272540710.1080/03602550902725407 ↗
72. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.02.01110.1016/j.compositesb.2014.02.011 ↗
73. 10.1002/pc.2630510.1002/pc.26305 ↗
74. 10.1002/pc.2803210.1002/pc.28032 ↗
75. 10.1002/pc.2652510.1002/pc.26525 ↗
76. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.08.01010.1016/j.compositesb.2016.08.010 ↗
77. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.07510.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.075 ↗
78. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2004.09.02310.1016/j.compscitech.2004.09.023 ↗