Materials and Design 62 (2014) 21–31

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes

Natural fibre composites: Comprehensive Ashby-type materials

selection charts
Darshil U. Shah ⇑
Oxford Silk Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To aid design engineers in closing the existing gap between current scientific knowledge and actual mar-
Received 4 March 2014 ket applications of plant fibre reinforced plastics (PFRPs), this article provides comprehensive Ashby-type
Accepted 2 May 2014 materials selection charts for PFRPs to facilitate product design and development. General tensile
Available online 14 May 2014
mechanical property profiles are presented for a variety of PFRPs to enable the design for (i) optimal
stiffness and strength, (ii) minimal weight (i.e. optimal specific properties), (iii) minimal cost, and (iv)
Keywords: minimal eco-impact. A large database is used to capture the range in properties of different (i) reinforce-
Natural fibres
ments forms (short fibres: pellets and nonwovens; long fibres: multiaxials and unidirectionals), (ii) poly-
Biocomposites
Materials selection chart
mer matrices (thermoplastic and thermosetting), and (iii) manufacturing techniques (injection moulding,
Materials property profile compression moulding, hand lay-up, vacuum infusion, resin transfer moulding and prepregging). As
Ashby plot PFRPs are often viewed as alternatives to glass fibre composites (GFRPs), for demonstrative purposes
Product design the tensile properties of the various PFRPs are compared with similar GFRPs. Moreover, highlighting that
other mechanical parameters may be critical performance indices for specific products and applications, a
materials property chart for a fatigue-limited design is also produced.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction goods markets [2]. Parallel to this, in spite of a threefold growth

Increasing environmental concerns and awareness amongst
consumers, tightened environmental and waste management legis-
lations by government, and a deepening reliance on non-renewable
resources by industry despite a commitment to social responsibility
are key factors that have driven the increasing interest in the use of
bio-based materials as replacements to traditional ‘man-made’
materials in various applications. To alleviate some of the environ-
mental issues associated with using synthetics in fibre reinforced
plastics (FRPs), bio-based, if not fully-green, ingredients are being
considered to replace both the typically synthetic fibre reinforce-
ment and the petrochemically-derived matrix [1]. Notably, other
than the eco-advantage of using bio-based constituents, their typi-
cally lower cost and wide availability, and their promising and com-
petitive technical mechanical properties have strengthened the
case for bio-based composites as engineering materials [1].
Despite the tremendous interest and vivid research in natural
fibre reinforced composites for over two decades, to date, they
have been successfully established only in the automotive indus-
try (for interior components) [1,2], and have to a limited extent
penetrated the construction (mainly deckings) and consumer
⇑ Tel.: +44 (0)1865271216.
E-mail addresses: darshil.shah@zoo.ox.ac.uk, darshil.shah@hotmail.co.uk
in the use of plant fibres (excluding wood and cotton) in
reinforced plastics over the last decade in the EU, only a small
percentage of plant fibres have been utilised as reinforcements
in composites [1]. A report by the European Industrial Hemp
Association [3] claims that in 2012, while hemp fibres repre-
sented 10–20% of the market share of plant fibre reinforced plas-
tics (PFRPs) in the EU, the total allocation of hemp for composites
applications was 14%; the two primary applications of hemp
fibres were for specialty pulp and paper (55%) and insulation
(26%). Flax fibres, on the other hand, accounted for >60% of the
EU market share of PFRPs, but even their primary application
(>75%) lay in textiles [4].
While it is clear that there is great scope for plant fibres to be
exploited as composite reinforcements, it is often suggested
[1,5–7] that the critical aspects limiting the wide industrial appli-
cations of PFRPs relate to:
(i) the variable and often inferior mechanical properties of
plant fibres in comparison to synthetic fibres like E-glass,
(ii) the lack of – or at least limited – empirical data on (a) critical
atypical loading conditions such as off-axis, multiaxial, high-
strain rate, fatigue and creep loading, and (b) the effects of
environmental conditions such as humidity/moisture and
temperature/fire, and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.05.002
0261-3069/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
22 D.U. Shah / Materials and Design 62 (2014) 21–31
(iii) inadequate understanding of (a) processing requirements of
plant fibres for composites applications, and (b) manufactur-
ing processes suitable for plant fibre composites.
In my opinion, however, the key and long-overlooked aspect is
the lack of materials selection databases incorporating near-com-
prehensive data sets on PFRPs. The consequence is that PFRPs
may not be on the radar of engineers and product designers in
all relevant industries as viable alternative materials.
1.1. Materials selection processes
Materials selection is an integral part of the product design and
development process (Fig. 1). To manufacture products which effi-
ciently perform their function in specified operating conditions
over their design life, appropriate materials need to be employed.
Typically, the selection criteria for materials choice are defined
by the component function, objective and constraint. Invariably,
the material processability and part manufacturability, dictated
by the shape, reproducibility and assembly of the final component,
may also affect the materials choice. Due to the large variety of
materials (and associated manufacturing processes) available, the
selection of materials for a given component may be a challenging
task. Indeed, if the selection process is not rigorous, the designer
Fig. 1. Key steps in materials selection through various stages of product design.
may opt for an inappropriate material or overlook an attractive
alternative material. Utilising systematic materials selection pro-
cesses is therefore essential.
Numerous materials selection techniques have been developed
over the years (refer to [8–10]), all of which rely on a large data
bank of materials and their properties. The two key steps in mate-
rials selection are screening and ranking (Figs. 1 and 2) [8–10]. The
former enables to quickly narrow the field of possible materials to
a manageable few while the latter narrows the choices further and
then evaluates and ranks the choices to identify the optimal
material(s).
1.1.1. Ashby’s method
One of the most popular techniques for initial screening of
materials is Ashby’s chart/bubble method. Asbhy [8] compares
the relative performance of a variety of materials for a specific con-
structive function by using performance indices as design criteria.
Materials screening, on the basis of these performance indices, is
best achieved by plotting the performance indices that are typi-
cally a mathematical combination of material properties on each
axis of a materials selection chart, also known as an Ashby plot.
Individual materials or material sub-classes appear as balloons
that define the range of their properties. Ashby plots, such as the
one presented in Fig. 3, are very useful for four key reasons
 D.U. Shah / Materials and Design 62 (2014) 21–31
Fig. 2. Classification of screening and ranking methods in materials selection. Adapted from [10].
[8,11]: (i) they allow quick retrieval of the typical properties of a
particular material, (ii) they allow quick comparison of the proper-
ties of different materials, revealing their comparative efficiencies,
(iii) they facilitate the selection of the materials/manufacturing
processes during the product design stage, and (iv) they enable
substitution studies exploring the potential of one material to
replace another.
A list of useful materials performance indices can be found in
[8]. Generally, minimising material weight (density q), cost Cmq
and/or eco-impact Ieq are key objectives for industrial products.
The key mechanical parameters, defined by the component func-
tion and constraint, are typically stiffness E and strength r. Follow-
ing Asbhy [8], the critical material performance indices that need
to be maximised for a light-weight beam/plate loaded in pure ten-
sion are specific tensile stiffness E/q and specific tensile strength
r/q. For a beam/plate loaded in bending mode, specific flexural
stiffness E1/3/q and strength r1/2/q need to be maximised.
1.2. Literature on materials selection methods for plant fibre
composites
A survey of current (industrial and academic) applications of
PFRPs has been presented in [1,12,13]. Recently, an increasing
number of scientific studies have looked at various technical appli-
cations of PFRPs, from musical instruments [14] to structural wind
turbine blades [15]. Although the articles often articulate the gen-
eral design specifications the component and material need to sat-
isfy, they seldom demonstrate through a systematic materials
selection process that the PFRP materials selected or developed
for/in the study are better than conventional materials and offer
specific mechanical, technical, economical, environmental or ergo-
nomical advantages. While the concept of materials selection is not
new, there are only limited studies that have focused on applying
materials selection techniques to PFRPs or even presenting useful
and comprehensive data sets on PFRPs which may be applied dur-
ing materials screening and ranking.
Conducting a materials selection exercise solely on PFRPs (i.e.
excluding other materials and polymer composites sub-groups),
Sapuan et al. [16,17] have demonstrated the use of the analytical
hierarchy process, a multi-criteria decision making method
(Fig. 2), for analysing and ranking candidate PFRP materials on
the basis of key mechanical and physical properties. They carried
out case studies on selecting the optimum PFRP material for
23
automotive dashboard panels and brake levers. The same research
group has also employed TOPSIS (technique for order of preference
by similarity to ideal solution), another multi-criteria decision
making method, to design a concept car bumper beam with hybrid
biocomposites material [18], however the study focuses on opti-
mising the bumper design for a pre-selected biocomposite
material.
More recently, Koronis et al. [19] reviewed green composites
(i.e. natural fibres reinforcing a bio-based matrix) as adequate
materials for automotive applications, and proposed the use of ter-
nary diagrams as materials screening tools. The ternary diagrams
consider three weighted bi-dimensional material properties such
as specific stiffness, specific strength and cost per weight, and
different materials show up as balloons in different regions of
the triangle’s area.
More researchers (for instance [1,11,13,20–25]) have looked to
produce Ashby-type charts to compare the general mechanical
properties of various sub-classes of PFRPs, against both each other
and conventional composites. In particular, the articles by Sobczak
et al. [22], Shah [1] and Dicker et al. [13] have been more compre-
hensive than the others. Sobczak et al. [22] produce detailed
mechanical property profiles considering absolute and specific ten-
sile strength and stiffness and Charpy impact strength, for a sub-
group of PFRPs: polypropylene composites reinforced with plant
and wood fibres. As part of a review paper [1], I have previously
presented Ashby plots considering absolute tensile properties for
a wider range of bast fibre reinforced PFRPs. In summarising major
material attributes of PFRPs and identifying potential areas of
applications, Dicker et al. [13] provide Ashby plots with data on
plant fibres (not their composites) amongst other classes of mate-
rials such as metals and ceramics.
The main objective of this article is to present Ashby-type mate-
rials screening charts on PFRPs to facilitate the product design and
development process and consequently aid design engineers in
closing the existing gap between current scientific knowledge
and actual market applications. Comprehensive mechanical prop-
erty profiles are presented for both plant fibres and PFRPs,
although focusing on the latter. The Ashby charts will portray (i)
absolute tensile properties, (ii) tensile properties per unit density,
(iii) tensile properties per unit cost, and (iv) tensile properties
per unit eco-impact. The tensile properties of various PFRPs are
also compared with other classes of engineering materials,
and specifically similar GFRPs. In addition, other mechanical
24 D.U. Shah / Materials and Design 62 (2014) 21–31
Fig. 3. Ashby plot illustrating the Young’s modulus and tensile strength of traditional engineering materials and natural materials on the same axis. From [11].
parameters, specifically fatigue endurance strength, are also
employed to produce materials property charts for PFRPs.
It is worth mentioning at the outset that while the materials
property charts for the PFRPs are derived from a large database
to illustrate the effects of different (i) reinforcements forms (short
fibres: pellets and nonwovens; long fibres: multiaxials and unidi-
rectionals), (ii) polymer matrices (thermoplastic and thermoset-
ting), and (iii) manufacturing techniques (injection moulding
(IM), compression moulding, hand lay-up, vacuum infusion, resin
transfer moulding and prepregging), the PFRPs included in the
database only consider plant bast fibres (e.g. flax, jute, hemp) as
reinforcements and non-biodegradable, petrochemical-derived
matrices (e.g. polypropylene, epoxy, polyester). I have previously
shown [1] that (i) as short fibre reinforcements, composites with
plant fibres from all categories (i.e. bast, leaf, seed, or grass/reed)
show similar mechanical properties, and (ii) only bast fibres (with
the exception of cotton, which however is a very short fibre) are
commercially available in the form of continuous yarns and textile
fabrics that can be used to manufacture aligned composites with
significantly improved properties. Therefore, bast fibres are ideal
to show the typical range in properties of various PFRPs. With
regards to the matrix, most studies and current applications on
and of PFRPs employ a non-biodegradable or non-bio-based matrix
and consequently more data is available for them in literature.
Notably, not all bio-based matrices are biodegradable and
therefore PFRPs with bio-based matrices may not necessarily be
biodegradable. The use of natural fibres as reinforcements in a
non-biodegradable or non-bio-based matrix has been attractive
as at least one element (namely, the fibre) is replaced by a renew-
ably-sourced material, and such PFRPs can be incinerated for
energy recovery. While fully-green composites are certainly an
interesting sub-set of PFRPs to map on a materials selection chart
in another study, nonetheless, as bio-based thermosets (like
furfuryl alcohol and furan resin, and soybean oil based epoxies)
typically have inferior mechanical properties to synthetic thermo-
sets, and bio-based thermoplastics tend to have comparable
mechanical properties to synthetic thermoplastics, the charts pro-
duced here can be used for indicative purposes.
2. Ashby plots for plant fibres
Plant fibres can be categorised according to either the region of
the plant they are extracted from, or their utilisation upon
 D.U. Shah / Materials and Design 62 (2014) 21–31
extraction (Fig. 4). In the former case, plant fibres are classified as
bast or stem fibres, leaf fibres, seed fibres, and other fibres (includ-
ing grasses, reeds, roots, and wood fibres). In the latter case, plant
fibres are grouped as primary fibres that are cultivated specifically
for their fibre content, and secondary fibres that are waste- or by-
products from some other primary utilisation. Invariably, fibres
from the same category tend to bunch together even in materials
property charts (Fig. 5, based on data from Supplementary Table 1
[13,25,26,31–42]).
In terms of absolute tensile properties (Fig. 5a), bast fibres exhi-
bit high strength (up to 700 MPa) and stiffness (up to 70 GPa).
Amongst bast fibres, ramie, flax, and hemp have higher properties
than jute and kenaf, for instance [26]. Leaf fibres tend to have mod-
erate to high strength (300–700 MPa), but much lower stiffness
(10–30 GPa) in comparison to bast fibres. Seed fibres, on the other
hand, have low to moderate strength (100–500 MPa) and very low
stiffness (up to 15 GPa).
Note that the clustering of fibres amongst their respective
groups is expected and is due to the distinct chemical composition
and structural morphology of fibres from a given group [1], which
in turn is a result of evolutionary incentive based on the function of
the fibre in the plant. For instance, seed fibres have no structural
role in a plant. Consequently, they have low cellulose crystallinity
(20–50%) and high microfibril angles (30–50°) [1] leading to infe-
rior mechanical properties. Bast fibres, on the other hand, exhibit
high cellulose crystallinity (50–90%) and low microfibril angles
(2–10°) [1] giving them the structural integrity required to support
the plant stem.
When specific tensile properties of plant fibres are considered
(Fig. 5b), clustering in their groups of origin is still observed as
the density of plant fibres is in the same general range of 1.3–
1.6 g cm 3. However, seed fibres, which have a lower density (in
the range of 0.7–1.6 g cm 3) due to their low cellulose crystallinity
and high luminal porosity [1,27] become slightly more comparable
to leaf fibres. It is interesting to note that while E-glass is not even
on the chart (i.e. ‘in another league’) for absolute tensile properties
(Fig. 5a), plant fibres appear to be more comparable to E-glass in
terms of specific properties (Fig. 5b) due to the latter’s higher
density of 2.6 g cm 3.
Fig. 4. Venn diagram illustrating how plant fibres can be classified based on the
part of the plant they are extracted from (i.e. bast, leaf, seed and other), or their
utilisation upon extraction (primary i.e. commercially useful, or secondary i.e.
waste/by-product).
25
To be viable replacements to synthetic fibres like E-glass, plant
fibres not only need to offer better if not comparable specific prop-
erties, but also need to do this at a lower if not comparable cost.
Considering the tensile properties per unit cost (Fig. 5c), it is
observed that most of the fibres overlap a strength per unit cost
of 650 MPa/(£kg 1 g cm 3) or a stiffness per unit cost of 32 MPa/
(£kg 1 g cm 3). While some seed and leaf fibres offer high tensile
strength per unit cost, bast fibres offer high tensile stiffness per
unit cost. Notably, alongside E-glass, pineapple fibres offer a strong
combination of strength and stiffness per unit cost. Jute fibres and
wood pulp supersede the performance of all the other fibres in
terms of property per unit cost. Cotton, on the other hand, is a clear
under-performer. It is interesting that despite its low tensile prop-
erties per unit cost, cotton fibres were the second largest reinforc-
ing natural fibre in plastics in the EU in 2010 [1]; while 170,000
tonnes of plastics were wood fibre reinforced and 100,000 tonnes
of plastics were cotton fibre reinforced, only 45,000 tonnes of plas-
tics were reinforced with other plant fibres with flax, jute and
hemp accounting for 64%, 11% and 10% of the share [1]. It is possi-
ble that the availability of the fibre plays an important role in their
usage as reinforcements: while the global production of all bast
fibres was under 5 million tonnes in 2010, more than 20 million
tonnes of cotton was produced in the same year [1].
As plant fibres are from a renewable source, they have acquired
an image of being green and requiring low production energies.
This is true for most raw plant fibres saving cotton due to its high
demand of pesticides and fertilisers. As observed in (Fig. 5d), most
plant fibres outperform E-glass in terms of tensile properties per
unit eco-impact, where embodied energy is taken as the measure
for eco-impact. The property chart reveals that the plant fibres
group themselves in terms of utilisation (Fig. 5d). Primary fibres
like flax, jute and hemp, are specifically produced for their fibre
content and hence the fibres take up most, if not all, of the environ-
mental burden of growing the plant. Secondary fibres that are
waste or by-products from some other primary utilisation and
therefore do not carry the environmental burden of the primary
utilisation of the plant. It is expected therefore that primary fibres
are heavily penalised in terms of property per unit eco-impact,
while secondary fibres receive a boost.
The results in (Fig. 5) are generally interesting and show the
position of different plant fibres in comparison to one another in
terms of mechanical properties that are absolute, specific, per unit
cost and per unit eco-impact. While it could be said that bast fibres
offer high absolute and specific properties, and that secondary
fibres offer high properties per unit eco-impact, there are underly-
ing complexities that need to be acknowledged. For instance, there
are processing limitations with secondary fibres: as these fibres are
typically short and there is no established textile industry to pro-
duce yarns/rovings and fabrics from them, the manufacture of
aligned textile composites for high-performance applications is
difficult. Therefore, while raw coir and pineapple fibres may be
eco-friendly alternatives to even raw flax and cotton fibres for non-
woven composites for applications in non-structural components
such as automotive interior components, the former are not prac-
tical options for structural applications. Moreover, the cost and
eco-impact of raw plant fibres is considerably different to that of
plant fibre rovings/yarns and fabrics [1,15]. These need to be incor-
porated appropriately in the comparison. In essence, in the process
of materials selection, property data should be on the actual mate-
rial form being used (e.g. raw fibre, processed yarn, or textile fab-
ric) and the interpretation of the Ashby charts should be done in
combination with information on component processing and fabri-
cation and possibly multiple product specifications.
For comparative purposes, Fig. 3 maps the tensile properties of
natural fibres against other natural materials, as well as traditional
engineering materials.
26 D.U. Shah / Materials and Design 62 (2014) 21–31

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 5. Charts comparing the (a) absolute tensile properties, (b) tensile properties per unit density, (c) tensile properties per unit cost, and (d) tensile properties per unit eco-
impact, for various categories of plant fibres. Bast fibres are a shade of blue, seed fibres are a shade of green, leaf fibres are a shade of red. The charts have been produced using
data presented in Supplementary Table 1. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

3. Ashby plots for plant fibre composites
For the construction of materials property charts on PFRPs that
capture the range of their typical properties, an extensive literature
survey was conducted (Supplementary Table 2 [5,43–63]). While
the literature survey only focussed on PFRPs employing plant bast
fibres as reinforcements, properties for a range of (i) reinforce-
ments forms (short fibres: pellets and nonwovens; long fibres:
multiaxials and unidirectionals), (ii) polymer matrices (thermo-
plastic and thermosetting), and (iii) manufacturing techniques
(injection moulding (IM), compression moulding, hand lay-up, vac-
uum infusion, resin transfer moulding and prepregging) were
incorporated.
Fig. 6a presents an Ashby plot for various PFRPs illustrating the
range in tensile strength and stiffness. It is noted that that tensile
strength and stiffness tend to increase linearly, at an approximate
rate of 10 MPa strength to 1 GPa stiffness. More interestingly, it is
evident that PFRPs can be categorised into four distinct sub-groups
with increasing tensile properties in the following order: (i) injec-
tion-moulded PFRPs based on short-fibre pellets whose mechanical
properties are low and comparable to the matrix material, (ii)
PFRPs based on nonwoven reinforcements (randomly-oriented
short fibres), (iii) PFRPs based on multiaxial textile reinforcements
(woven and stitched biaxials, for instance) and (iv) unidirectional
PFRPs. Therefore, the reinforcement form, in terms of fibre length
and orientation, has a governing effect on the properties of the
resulting PFRP due to the substantial difference in length and
orientation efficiency factors between the reinforcement forms
(Supplementary Table 3 [1,15,25,41,51,64–66]). The effects of
matrix type and manufacturing technique on the properties are
comparably smaller but not insignificant as they shift the material
properties within that sub-group. In particular, it is found
(expectedly) that thermoset-based PFRPs have better mechanical
properties than thermoplastic-based PFRPs. The manufacturing
technique has a larger effect in the case of unidirectional PFRPs
than multiaxial and nonwoven PFRPs. The achievable fibre volume
fractions and porosity content typically increase and decrease,
respectively in the following order: hand lay-up, vacuum infusion,
RTM, compression moulding and prepregging [1,28]. Conse-
quently, the tensile properties of the PFRPs are also observed to
increase in the same order.
Despite some dissimilarity in the fibre volume fractions of the
PFRP subgroups in Fig. 6a, in terms of specific properties no drastic
shifts are observed in their relative positions (Fig. 6b). This indi-
cates that increasing the fibre volume fraction increases not only
absolute but also specific properties. The specific tensile strength
and specific stiffness increase fairly linearly, at an approximate rate
of 10 MPa/gcm 3 specific strength to 1 GPa/gcm 3 specific stiff-
ness. Notably, the better absolute and specific properties of long
fibre aligned PFRPs (i.e. multiaxial and unidirectional) indicates
that they are more suitable for applications where structural integ-
rity and possibly light weight are the only objectives. Shah et al.
 D.U. Shah / Materials and Design 62 (2014) 21–31 27

Fig. 6. Materials selection chart for plant fibre reinforced plastics (PFRPs) manufactured with thermoplastic (unfilled balloons) or thermoset (filled balloons) resins, short-
random or long-aligned fibre reinforcements, and various manufacturing routes. Charts show (a) absolute properties, (b) specific properties, (c) properties per unit cost, and
(d) properties per unit eco-impact. The charts have been produced using data presented in Supplementary Table 2.

[15] have previously demonstrated that aligned flax composites
are suitable for structural wind turbine blade applications; their
flax blade was 10% lighter than a similar construction E-glass
blade, with no compromise on mechanical strength.
The Ashby plots in Fig. 6a and b suggest that unidirectional
PFRPs, for instance provide 2–20 times better (absolute and spe-
cific) tensile properties than nonwoven PFRPs and up to 5 times
better tensile properties than multiaxial PFRPs. However, this does
not necessarily imply that unidirectional PFRPs would be preferred
over the other materials for all applications. Indeed, while reducing
cost has long been a critical objective for composites in industrial
applications including automotive parts, reducing eco-impact is
also becoming an increasingly common target. Subsequently, per-
formance indices incorporating cost and eco-impact may be used
to produce a more appropriate materials selection chart for these
cases. For simplicity, only the cost and eco-impact (in terms of
embodied energy) of the constituent materials, namely the rein-
forcement and the matrix, has been included in this study. The cost
and eco-impact of employing a particular manufacturing process
has not been included as these are dependent on various factors
such as the part size, production volume, cure process, and labour
and direct costs (which are different for different countries). In fact,
it is not uncommon for design engineers to use separate selection
charts for materials and processes/tools. However, it is notable that
with composite materials often the final product (including rein-
forcement form and matrix type) and the manufacturing process
are strongly inter-dependent.
Fig. 6c presents the typical tensile properties per unit cost for
the various PFRPs. It is worth commenting that in comparison to
absolute and specific tensile properties, the spread is much larger
for properties per unit cost. Typical thermoplastic matrices such
as polypropylene and polyethylene tend to be of lower cost
(0.5–2 £/kg) in comparison to thermosetting matrices such as
unsaturated polyester, and particularly epoxies and phenolics
(1–5 £/kg). Consequently, thermoplastic-based PFRPs perform bet-
ter in comparison to similar reinforcement thermoset-based PFRPs.
However, the greater effect (again) is from the reinforcement form.
Nonwoven PFRPs outperform unidirectional and multiaxial PFRPs
in terms of property per unit cost, while injection moulded PFRPs
are comparable to unidirectional PFRPs. In their cost analysis of
flax/polyester wind turbine blades, Shah et al. [15] have com-
mented on the considerable cost of aligned plant fibre reinforce-
ments (i.e. unidirectional and multiaxials), and the significant
price difference between short plant fibre reinforcements such as
pellets and nonwoven mats (0.5–2 £/kg) and long aligned plant
fibres reinforcements (10–50 £/kg) (Supplementary Table 3). They
attribute the higher cost of aligned plant fibre reinforcements to
the additional processing steps and incurred costs in converting
naturally discontinuous plant fibres, which are readily useable
for pellets and nonwovens, into yarns/rovings followed by
stitched/woven fabrics [15]. Unsurprisingly, multiaxial PFRPs per-
form particularly poorly as not only do they have low tensile prop-
erties (Fig. 6a) due to the high fibre misorientation (Supplementary
Table 3), but they are also costly due to the high reinforcement cost
(Supplementary Table 3). On the other hand, nonwoven PFRPs
perform much better than injection moulded PFRPs despite their
similar reinforcement cost (Supplementary Table 3) due to the for-
mer’s higher mechanical properties (Fig. 6a). It is interesting to
28 D.U. Shah / Materials and Design 62 (2014) 21–31

Fig. 7. Ashby plot comparing the Young’s modulus and tensile strength of PFRPs (filled balloons) with various other engineering materials (unfilled balloons). The inset zoom
image shows materials with properties in a similar range to PFRPs. Refer to Fig. 6 for a legend key on the different PFRPs. This chart has been produced using data on PFRPs
from Supplementary Table 2 and data on other engineering materials from [72].

note that the superior position of nonwoven PFRPs justifies there
wide-spread application for non-structural applications in the
cost-driven automotive industry.
When considering properties per unit eco-impact (Fig. 6d), the
materials selection chart once again reorganizes to a similar form
as in Fig. 6a and b for absolute and specific properties. Unidirec-
tional PFRPs offer highest properties, followed by nonwovens and
multiaxial PFRPs in a similar range, and then injection moulded
PFRPs. However, unlike in absolute and specific properties, when
considering properties per unit eco-impact, the range of properties
for nonwoven PFRPs is in the same range as multiaxial PFRPs, while
the properties of multiaxial PFRPs overlaps with unidirectional
PFRPs. This is due to the lower eco-impact of nonwoven mats in
comparison to unidirectional mats and multiaxial fabrics
(Supplementary Table 3). However, the difference in eco-impact
of the reinforcement forms is not as large as observed with cost
(Supplementary Table 3).
3.1. Comparing plant fibre composites with other engineering
materials
The materials selection charts generated in Fig. 6 only compare
the properties of various PFRPs. The database can be used to com-
pare PFRPs with other traditional engineering materials such as
wood and other building materials, metals and alloys, ceramics
and glasses, and polymers and composites. Figs. 7 and 8 show
the relative position of the various PFRPs to some traditional
engineering materials, in terms of absolute and specific tensile
properties.
It is found that the PFRPs tend to have much lower stiffness and
strength than steels and carbon composites (Fig. 7). Metal alloys of
zinc, copper and aluminium have much higher stiffness, but com-
parable strength to the PFRPs. The inset zoom image in Fig. 7 shows
traditional materials with properties in a similar range to PFRPs;
these include woods (ply, hard, soft), unreinforced plastics (like

Fig. 8. Ashby plot comparing the specific tensile modulus and specific tensile strength of PFRPs (filled balloons) with various other engineering materials (unfilled balloons).
Refer to Fig. 6 for a legend key on the different PFRPs. This chart has been produced using data on PFRPs from Supplementary Table 2 and data on other engineering materials
from [72].
 D.U. Shah / Materials and Design 62 (2014) 21–31 29

Fig. 9. Comparison of the absolute and specific tensile properties of plant fibre reinforced plastics (PFRPs) with E-glass reinforced plastics (GFRPs). Data for PFRPs is from
Supplementary Table 2, while data for GFRPs is from [72,73].

poly-amides, epoxies, styrene, urethanes), glass fibre reinforced

composites (sheet and bulk moulding compounds, and textile com-
posites laminates), and building materials (like brick and concrete).
As PFRPs, and polymer composites in general, have low densi-
ties, their specific properties are more interesting for comparison
(Fig. 8). In fact, PFRPs show comparable specific properties to some
metals and their alloys due to the much higher densities of the
latter.

3.1.1. Comparing plant fibre composites with glass fibre composites

As E-glass composites (GFRPs) dominate the fibre reinforced
plastics market, PFRPs have often been viewed as alternatives to
GFRPs [1]. Consequently, it would be useful to compare the prop-
erties of the various PFRPs with similar GFRPs.
Fig. 9 presents another format of a materials property chart
comparing the absolute and specific tensile properties of PFRPs
with GFRPs. Various composite types have been considered based
on the matrix type (thermoplastic or thermosetting) and reinforce-
ment form (pellets for IM, nonwovens, multiaxials and unidirec-
tionals). It is revealed that PFRPs, particularly (i) unidirectional
thermosets and thermoplastics, and (ii) nonwoven thermoplastics,
perform exceptionally well against similar GFRPs in terms of both
absolute and specific stiffness. However, both the absolute and
specific tensile strength of PFRPs tends to be lower than that of
GFRPs. Consequently, in terms of tensile properties, it can be said
that PFRPs may be potential alternatives to GFRPs in stiffness-
critical applications, but not in strength-critical applications.
3.2. Considering other mechanical properties
Fig. 10. Materials selection chart for plant fibre reinforced plastics (PFRPs) based on
ultimate tensile strength against fatigue strength at 106 cycles. Part of the literature
survey for the data is presented in Supplementary Table 4.
As an example, an Ashby plot of ultimate (single-cycle) tensile
strength against fatigue strength at 106 cycles for PFRPs is pre-
sented in Fig. 10. Part of the literature survey for the data is pre-
sented in Supplementary Table 4 [29,30,61,67–71]. The fatigue
strength at 106 cycles is often used as an endurance limit to design
for infinite fatigue life. Note the fewer data points on this chart as
fatigue characterisation of PFRPs is a relatively new area of
research. Fig. 10 demonstrates that the fatigue endurance strength
of PFRPs is proportional to their tensile strength; this has been sug-
gested by some researchers previously [29,30].

While tensile properties are commonly used as mechanical

parameters for performance indices in material selection charts, 4. Conclusions
depending on the component function and objective other
mechanical parameters such as flexural stiffness and strength, As the wide variety of plant fibres offer a range of useful
impact strength, and fatigue strength may be employed. properties, and the versatile nature of composites implies that
30 D.U. Shah / Materials and Design 62 (2014) 21–31
properties can be tailored by intelligent selection of various ‘com-
posite parameters’, PFRPs will obviously cover a wide array of
properties. Here, comprehensive Ashby-type materials selection
charts for PFRPs have been produced to facilitate product design
and development. The charts are derived from a large database
which includes properties for various PFRPs based on different (i)
reinforcements forms (short fibres: pellets and nonwovens; long
fibres: multiaxials and unidirectionals), (ii) polymer matrices
(thermoplastic and thermosetting), and (iii) manufacturing tech-
niques (injection moulding, compression moulding, hand lay-up,
vacuum infusion, resin transfer moulding and prepregging). The
general tensile mechanical property profiles presented will enable
the design for (i) optimal stiffness and strength, (ii) minimal
weight (i.e. optimal specific properties), (iii) minimal cost, and
(iv) minimal eco-impact.
As PFRPs are often viewed as alternatives to glass fibre compos-
ites (GFRPs), for demonstrative purposes the tensile properties of
the various PFRPs were compared with similar GFRPs. It is foreseen
that readers would be able to similarly compare the performance
of PFRPs with various other materials, particularly natural compos-
ites like wood and other conventional polymer composites like ara-
mid and carbon fibre composites.
Highlighting that other mechanical parameters may be critical
performance indices for specific products and applications, a mate-
rials property chart for a fatigue-limited design was also produced
for demonstrative purposes. Similar charts for impact-critical
structures and flexural- or compressive-stress dominated struc-
tures would be highly useful.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.
05.002.
References
[1] Shah D. Developing plant fibre composites for structural applications by
optimising composite parameters: a critical review. J Mater Sci 2013;48(18):
6083–107.
[2] Carus M. Bio-composites: technologies, applications and markets. In: 4th
International conference on sustainable materials, polymers and composites.
Birmingham, UK; 6–7 July 2011.
[3] Carus M, Karst S, Kauffmann A, Hobson J, Bertucelli S. The European hemp
industry: cultivation, processing and applications for fibres, shivs and
seeds. Hürth, Germany: European Industrial Hemp Association; 2013.
[4] Karus M. Overview on the EIHA & the European Natural Fibre Industry:
Cultivation, processing, and product lines. In: 4th International conference of
the european industrial hemp association (EIHA) Cologne, Germany; 2006.
[5] Wambua P, Ivens J, Verpoest I. Natural fibres: can they replace glass in fibre
reinforced plastics? Compos Sci Technol 2003;63:1259–64.
[6] Azwa Z, Yousif BF, Manalo AC, Karunasena W. A review on the degradability of
polymeric composites based on natural fibres. Mater Des 2013;47:424–42.
[7] Pickering K, editor. Properties and performance of natural-fibre
composites. Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC; 2008.
[8] Ashby M. Materials selection in mechanical design. Oxford, UK: Pergamon
Press; 1992.
[9] Kutz M, editor. Handbook of materials selection. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.; 2002.
[10] Jahan A, Ismail MY, Sapuan SM, Mustapha F. Material screening and choosing
methods – a review. Mater Des 2010;31:696–705.
[11] Ashby M. The CES EduPack database of natural and man-made materials (MFA,
20/12/2007). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University and Granta Design; 2008.
[12] Madsen B, Gamstedt EK. Wood versus plant fibers: Similarities and differences
in composite applications (Article ID 564346). Adv Mater Sci Eng 2013.
[13] Dicker M, Duckworth PF, Baker AB, Francois G, Hazzard MK, Weaver PM. Green
composites: a review of material attributes and complementary applications.
Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf 2014;56:280–9.
[14] Phillips S, Lessard L. Application of natural fiber composites to musical
instrument top plates. J Compos Mater 2012;46(2):145–54.
[15] Shah D, Schubel PJ, Clifford MJ. Can flax replace E-glass in structural
composites? a small wind turbine blade case study. Compos B Eng
2013;52:172–81.
[16] Sapuan S, Kho JY, Zainudin ES, Leman Z, Ali BAA, Hambali A. Materials selection
for natural fiber reinforced polymer composites using analytical hierarchy
process. Indian J Eng Mater Sci 2011;18(4):255–67.
[17] Mansor M, Sapuan SM, Zainudin ES, Nuraini AA, Hambali A. Hybrid natural and
glass fibers reinforced polymer composites material selection using analytical
hierarchy process for automotive brake lever design. Mater Des 2013;51:
484–92.
[18] Davoodi M, Sapuan SM, Ahmad D, Aidy A, Khalina A, Jonoobi M. Concept
selection of car bumper beam with developed hybrid bio-composite material.
Mater Des 2011;32:4857–65.
[19] Koronis G, Silva A, Fontul M. Green composites: a review of adequate materials
for automotive applications. Compos B Eng 2013;44(1):120–7.
[20] Schuh T. Renewable materials for automotive application. In: Natural fibres
performance forum. Copenhagen, Denmark; 1999.
[21] Dittenber D, Gangarao HVS. Critical review of recent publications on use of
natural composites in infrastructure. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 2012;43:
1419–29.
[22] Sobczak L, Lang RW, Haider A. Polypropylene composites with natural fibers
and wood – general mechanical property profiles. Compos Sci Technol
2012;72:550–7.
[23] Carus M, Gahle C. Natural fibre reinforced plastics – material with
future. Huerth: nova-Institut GmbH; 2008.
[24] Miao M, Finn N. Conversion of natural fibres into structural composites. J
Textile Eng 2008;54(6):165–77.
[25] Steger J. Light weight! No matter what the costs? Plant fibres for light weight
automotive applications. J Biobased Mater Bioenergy 2010;4(2):181–4.
[26] Lewin M. Handbook of fiber chemistry. 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC.;
2007.
[27] Mwaikambo L, Ansell MP. The determination of porosity and cellulose
content of plant fibers by density methods. J Mater Sci Lett 2001;20(23):
2095–6.
[28] Harris B. Engineering composite materials. London: The Institute of Materials;
1999.
[29] Shah D, Schubel PJ, Clifford MJ, Licence P. Fatigue life evaluation of aligned
plant fibre composites through S–N curves and constant-life diagrams.
Compos Sci Technol 2013;74:139–49.
[30] Liang S, Gning PB, Guillaumat L. Properties evolution of flax/epoxy composites
under fatigue loading. Int J Fatigue 2014;63:36–45.
[31] Summerscales J, Dissanayake N, Virk AS, Hall W. A review of bast fibres and
their composites. Part 1 – Fibres as reinforcements. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf
2010;41(10):1329–35.
[32] Shahzad A. Hemp fiber and its composites – a review. J Compos Mater
2012;46(8):973–86.
[33] Li Y, Mai Y, Ye L. Sisal fibre and its composites: a review of recent
developments. Compos Sci Technol 2000;60(11):2037–55.
[34] Venkateshwaran N, Elayaperumal A. Banana fibre reinforced polymer
composites – a review. J Reinf Plast Compos 2010;29:2387–96.
[35] Mishra S, Mohanty AK, Drzal LT, Misra M, Hinrichsen G. A review on pineapple
leaf fibers, sisal fibers and their biocomposites. Macromol Mater Eng
2004;289:955–74.
[36] Kamath M, Bhat GS, Parikh DV, Mueller D. Cotton fiber nonwovens for
automotive composites. Int Nonwovens J 2005;14(1):34–40.
[37] Zini E, Scandola M. Green composites: an overview. Polym Compos
2011;32(12):1905–15.
[38] Faruk O, Bledzki AK, Fink HP, Sain M. Biocomposites reinforced with natural
fibres: 2000–2010. Prog Polym Sci 2012;37(11):1552–96.
[39] Fu S, Lauke B, Mader E, Yue CY, Hu X. Tensile properties of short-glass-fiber-
and short-carbon-fiber-reinforced polypropylene composites. Compos A Appl
Sci Manuf 2007;31:1117–25.
[40] Bledzki A, Gassan J. Composites reinforced with cellulose based fibres. Prog
Polym Sci 1999;24:221–74.
[41] Duflou J, Deng Y, Acker KV, Dewulf W. Do fiber-reinforced polymer composites
provide environmentally benign alternatives? A life-cycle-assessment-based
study. MRS Bull 2012;37:374–82.
[42] Joshi S, Drzal LT, Mohanty AK. Are natural fiber composites environmentally
superior to glass fiber reinforced composites? In: International LCA
conference, Seattle, USA; 2003.
[43] Arbelaiz A, Fernandez B, Cantero G, Llano-Ponte R, Valea A, Mondragon I.
Mechanical properties of flax fibre/polypropylene composites: Influence of
fibre/matrix modification and glass fibre hybridization. Compos A Appl Sci
Manuf 2005;36:1637–44.
[44] Mutje P, Girones J, Lopez A, Llop MF, Vilaseca F. Hemp strands: PP composites
by injection molding: effect of low cost physico-chemical treatments. J Reinf
Plast Compos 2006;25:313–27.
[45] van den Oever M, Bos HL, van Kemenade MJJM. Influence of the physical
structure of flax fibres on the mechanical properties of flax fibre reinforced
polypropylene composites. Appl Compos Mater 2000;7:387–402.
[46] Beckwith S. Natural fiber reinforcement materials: lower cost technology for
composites applications. In Composites fabrication; November/December
2003. p. 12–16.
[47] Shahzad A. Effects of alkalization on tensile, impact, and fatigue properties of
hemp fiber composites. Polym Compos 2012;33(7):1129–40.
[48] Rodríguez E, Petrucci R, Puglia D, Kenny JM, Vazquez A. Characterization of
composites based on natural and glass fibers obtained by vacuum infusion. J
Compos Mater 2005;39(5):265–82.
 D.U. Shah / Materials and Design 62 (2014) 21–31
[49] George J, Ivens J, Verpoest I. Mechanical properties of flax fibre reinforced
epoxy composites. Die Angewandte Makromolekulare Chemie
1999;272(1):41–5.
[50] Madsen B, Lilholt H. Physical and mechanical properties of unidirectional plant
fibre composites – an evaluation of the influence of porosity. Compos Sci
Technol 2003;63:1265–72.
[51] Madsen B. Properties of plant fibre yarn polymer composites – an
experimental study. Ph.D. Lyngby, Denmark: Technical University of
Denmark; 2004.
[52] Charlet K, Jernot JP, Gomina M, Bizet L, Bréard J. Mechanical properties of flax
fibers and of the derived unidirectional composites. J Compos Mater
2010;44(24):2887–96.
[53] Goutianos S, Peijs T, Nystrom B, Skrifvars M. Development of flax fibre based
textile reinforcements for composite applications. Appl Compos Mater
2006;13(4):199–215.
[54] Hughes M, Carpenter J, Hill C. Deformation and fracture behaviour of flax fibre
reinforced thermosetting polymer matrix composites. J Mater Sci 2007;42:
2499–511.
[55] Roe P, Ansell MP. Jute-reinforced polyester composites. J Mater Sci 1985;20:
4015–20.
[56] Gassan J, Bledzki AK. Possibilities for improving the mechanical properties of
jute/epoxy composites by alkali treatment of fibres. Compos Sci Technol
1999;59:1303–9.
[57] Shah D, Schubel PJ, Clifford MJ, Licence P. Mechanical property
characterization of aligned plant yarn reinforced thermoset matrix
composites manufactured via vacuum infusion. Polymer–Plastics Technol
Eng 2014;53:239–53.
[58] Oksman K. High quality flax fibre composites manufactured by the resin
transfer moulding process. J Reinf Plast Compos 2001;20(7):621–7.
[59] Baets J, Plastria D, Ivens J, Verpoest I. Determination of the optimal flax fibre
preparation for use in UD-epoxy composites. In: 4th International conference
on sustainable materials, polymers and composites, Birmingham, UK; 6–7 July
2011.
[60] Weyenberg I, Chitruong T, Vangrimde B, Verpoest I. Improving the properties
of UD flax fibre reinforced composites by applying an alkaline fibre treatment.
Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf 2006;37:1368–76.
31
[61] Liang S, Gning PB, Guillaumat L. A comparative study of fatigue behaviour of
flax/epoxy and glass/epoxy composites. Compos Sci Technol
2012;72(5):535–43.
[62] Phillips S, Baets J, Lessard L, Hubert P, Verpoest I. Characterization of flax/
epoxy prepregs before and after cure. J Reinf Plast Compos 2013;32(11):
777–85.
[63] Meredith J, Coles SR, Powe R, Collings E, Cozien-Cazuc S, Weager B, et al. On the
static and dynamic properties of flax and Cordenka epoxy composites. Compos
Sci Technol 2013;80:31–8.
[64] Dissanayake N. Life cycle assessment of flax fibres for the reinforcement of
polymer matrix composites. Ph.D. Plymouth, UK: University of Plymouth;
2011.
[65] Joshi S, Drzal LT, Mohanty AK, Arora S. Are natural fiber composites
environmentally superior to glass fiber reinforced composites? Compos A
Appl Sci Manuf 2004;35:371–6.
[66] Le Duigou A, Davies P, Baley C. Environmental impact analysis of the
production of flax fibres to be used as composite material reinforcement. J
Biobased Mater Bioenergy 2011;5(1):153–65.
[67] Shahzad A, Isaac DH. Fatigue properties of hemp and glass fiber composites.
Polym Compos; 2014 [in press]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pc.22851.
[68] Yuanjian T, Isaac DH. Impact and fatigue behaviour of hemp fibre composites.
Compos Sci Technol 2007;67:3300–7.
[69] Towo A, Ansell MP. Fatigue evaluation and dynamic mechanical thermal
analysis of sisal fibre-thermosetting resin composites. Compos Sci Technol
2008;68:925–32.
[70] de Vasconcellos D, Touchard F, Chocinski-Arnault L. Tension–tension fatigue
behaviour of woven hemp fibre reinforced epoxy composite: a multi-
instrumented damage analysis. Int J Fatigue 2014;59:159–69.
[71] Sawi I, Fawaz Z, Zitoune R, Bougherara H. An investigation of the damage
mechanisms and fatigue life diagrams of flax fiber-reinforced polymer
laminates. J Mater Sci 2014;49:2338–46.
[72] CES EduPack. Cambridge, UK: Granta Design Limited; 2012.
[73] Sims G. 2.05 – Glass fiber reinforced plastics – properties. In: Kelly A, Zweben
C, editors. Comprehensive composite materials. Elsevier; 2000. p. 151–97.