Journal of Natural Fibers

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjnf20

Improvement of the Degradation of Tensile

and Impact Strength of Water-aged Sisal Fiber-
reinforced Polyester Composites: A Comparative
Study on the Effects of Hybridizations, Hybrid
Layering Sequences, and Chemical Treatments

Abrha Gebregergs Tesfay, Mulu Bayray Kahsay & P.S. Senthil Kumar

To cite this article: Abrha Gebregergs Tesfay, Mulu Bayray Kahsay & P.S. Senthil Kumar
(2022): Improvement of the Degradation of Tensile and Impact Strength of Water-aged Sisal
Fiber-reinforced Polyester Composites: A Comparative Study on the Effects of Hybridizations,
Hybrid Layering Sequences, and Chemical Treatments, Journal of Natural Fibers, DOI:
10.1080/15440478.2022.2029663

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2022.2029663

Published online: 10 Feb 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 42

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjnf20
JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS
https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2022.2029663

Improvement of the Degradation of Tensile and Impact Strength of

Water-aged Sisal Fiber-reinforced Polyester Composites:
A Comparative Study on the Effects of Hybridizations, Hybrid
Layering Sequences, and Chemical Treatments
Abrha Gebregergs Tesfay , Mulu Bayray Kahsay , and P.S. Senthil Kumar
School of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, EiT – M, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This research aims to reduce the degradation of sisal fiber-reinforced polye­ Sisal fiber; alkali treatment;
ster composites due to water absorption through chemical treatments and hybridization; stacking
hybridizations. Sisal fibers were treated using sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sequence; water absorption;
mechanical properties
baking soda (NaHCO3). Unidirectional glass and carbon fibers were chosen as
hybrid fibers. Thirteen laminates of pure sisal fibers, hybridized with glass or
carbon fibers at different stacking sequences and volume fractions, were
prepared using the hand layup technique. The laminates were examined for
tensile and impact strength at dry and wet conditions. The effects of baking
soda and sodium hydroxide treatments, glass and carbon fibers hybridiza­
tion, and the sequence and volume of the hybrid fibers on the tensile
strength, impact strength, water absorption, and degradation of the lami­
nates were studied and compared. Chemical treatments and hybridizations
have enhanced the tensile and impact strength of the composites.
Significant reduction in the water uptake rate and degradation of the lami­
nates were observed. Almost 166% and 87%, respectively, improvements
were obtained in the tensile and impact strength of the dry samples.
Moreover, more than 74% reduction in water uptake, and 84.7% and
91.7%, respectively, improvements in the degradation of the tensile and
impact strengths were discovered.
摘要
本研究旨在通过化学处理和杂交, 减少剑麻纤维增强聚酯复合材料因吸水
而产生的降解. 用氢氧化钠 (NaOH) 和小苏打 (NaHCO3) 处理剑麻纤维. 选
择单向玻璃纤维和碳纤维作为混杂纤维. 采用手工叠层技术, 制备了13块不
同叠层顺序和体积分数的纯剑麻纤维与玻璃纤维或碳纤维混杂层压板. 在
干燥和潮湿条件下, 对层压板的拉伸和冲击强度进行了检查. 研究并比较了
小苏打和氢氧化钠处理, 玻璃纤维和碳纤维杂化以及杂化纤维的顺序和体
积对层压板拉伸强度, 冲击强度, 吸水率和降解的影响. 化学处理和杂交提
高了复合材料的拉伸和冲击强度. 观察到层压板的吸水率和降解显著降低.
干燥样品的拉伸强度和冲击强度分别提高了166%和87%. 此外, 发现吸水
率降低了74%以上, 拉伸强度和冲击强度的降低分别提高了84.7%和91.7%.

CONTACT Abrha Gebregergs Tesfay [email protected] School of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, EiT – M,
Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia
Abrha Gebregergs Tesfay: PhD candidate, Design Engineering, Mekelle University, M.Tech., Design Engineering IIT Bombay, B.Sc.,
Mechanical Engineering, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia.; Mulu Bayray Kahsay: PhD, Mechanical Engineering, Technische
Universität Wien, MSc., Mechanical Engineering, Cranfield University, B.Sc., Mechanical Engineering, Addis Ababa University, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.; P.S. Senthil Kumar: PhD, Product Design Engineering, Anna University, ME., Product Design and Development, Anna
University, B.Sc., Mechanical Engineering, Bharathiar University, India.
© 2022 Taylor & Francis
2 A. G. TESFAY ET AL.

Introduction
Sisal plants grow in the northern part of Ethiopia in large amounts. The plants are drought resistant and
easy to cultivate. Fibers, extracted from the plants, have traditionally been used to make bags, baskets,
ropes, and rugs. Sisal fibers are advantageous over synthetic fibers for their biodegradability, renewability,
low densities, and low processing costs; however, they have rarely been used for structural and industrial
applications. This is due to their low strength, incompatibility with the polymer matrix, high water
absorption properties, and degradation due to water absorption. Therefore, performing research on the
sisal fiber in such a way to improve its strength, compatibility with the polymer matrix, and degradation
helps to widen the application of the fibers. Thus, demand for the plant increases and could serve as
a source of income for the local farmers and small-scale manufacturers. Research has been performed on
the mechanical properties of sisal fibers grown in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia (Melkamu, Kahsay, and
Tesfay 2019; Tesfay, Kahsay, and Senthil Kumar 2020. Tesfay, Kahsay, and Senthil Kumar (2020) have
improved the tensile and impact strength of the locally collected sisal fiber reinforced polyester composite
through chemical treatments, hybridization, and fiber alignments. Others have performed their study on
the improvement of the mechanical and water absorption properties of natural fiber-reinforced compo­
sites through chemical treatments, appropriate alignments, and hybridizations (Chaitanya and Singh
2018; Dhakal et al. 2013; Fiore, Bella, and Valenza 2015; Jarukumjorn and Suppakarn 2009; Krishna and
Kanny 2016; Mbeche and Omara 2020; Premnath 2019; Yahaya et al. 2015). Glass hybridization has
improved the tensile, flexural, and impact strength of the composites without major effect on their tensile
and flexural moduli (Jarukumjorn and Suppakarn 2009; Yahaya et al. 2015). Carbon fiber hybridization
has also shown significant improvement in the water absorption, thermal stability, tensile, and flexural
properties of the hybrid composites (Dhakal et al. 2013). In addition, improvements were reported
through alterations in the orientation, stacking sequence, length, volume fraction, alignment, and
manufacturing process of the fibers (Dhakal et al. 2013; Sanjay et al. 2019; Yahaya et al. 2015).
Water absorption has degraded the mechanical properties of composites (Assarar et al. 2011;
Athijayamani, Thiruchitrambalam, and Pazhanivel 2009; Chaudhary, Bajpai, and Maheshwari 2020;
Costa and D’almeida 1999; Joseph et al. 2002). Up to 46.9% reduction in tensile strength is reported by
Chaudhary, Bajpai, and Maheshwari (2020). The degradation is observed to be reduced through
hybridizations and treatments (Gupta and Deep 2019; Joseph et al. 2002). Incorporation of 10% weight
of glass fiber plies in the composite of sisal fiber-reinforced composites immersed in water for 15 days
has reduced the degradation in tensile strength from 14% to 2% (Gupta and Deep 2019). The research
focuses on the improvement of the tensile and impact strength and its degradation due to water
absorption in sisal fiber reinforced polyester composites through chemical treatments, hybridizations,
and alterations in the volume and stacking sequence of the hybrid fibers.

Materials and methods

Materials
The matrix material used was commercially available unsaturated polyester. The matrix was mixed
with curing catalyst, butanox, according to the manufacturer’s recommended mix ratio.
Unidirectional carbon and glass fibers provided by Faserverbundwerkstoffe composite technology in
Germany were used as the reinforcement. Sisal plant leaves were collected from the outskirts of
Mekelle city, Tigray, Ethiopia. Sisal fibers were treated using sodium hydroxide and baking soda
provided by local suppliers.

Fiber extraction and preparation of unidirectional sisal ply

Sisal fibers were extracted manually by decorticating the pulp out of the sisal leaves and cut into
300 mm length. The sisal fibers were washed using water and dried for 3 days in sunlight. The fibers
were made unidirectional manually and kept crammed between papers from the top and bottom sides.
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 3

Figure 1. (a) Manually extracted sisal fibers (b) washing of sisal plies after sewing (c) drying the sisal plies (d) dry sisal plies ready for
laminate preparation.

The papers were stitched along with the assembly to avoid distortion of the fabric during sewing.
Consequently, straight alignments of the fibers were maintained during sewing. The papers were then
removed by soaking the fabric into a water bath. The plies were kept in sunlight to dry for 3 days as
shown in Figure 1(c).

Chemical treatments of sisal fibers

Sisal fibers were treated using sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and baking soda (NaHCO3). A 6% weight
diluted solution of sodium hydroxide was used to treat the sisal fibers. The fibers were kept immersed
in the solution for 3 hours as recommended by Yahaya et al. (2015). The fibers were washed with water
to remove any sodium hydroxide left and made to dry at room temperature for three days. Sisal fibers
were also treated using baking soda for comparison. The fibers were kept soaked for 120 hours, which
is the optimum time for maximum mechanical properties according to Fiore et al. (2016), in a 10% in
weight sodium bicarbonate solution.

Composite laminate preparation

A hand layup method, followed by compression molding, was used to prepare the composite
laminates. A releasing agent was used on the surfaces of the mold in contact with the laminates.
A measured quantity of unsaturated polyester resin mixed with the butanox catalyst was poured on
a pre-weighed amount of fiber mat placed in the flat mold. The resin-saturated laminates were
squeezed using a cylindrical wooden rod to ensure wetting of the mat and remove air bubbles and
any extra resin at the surface of the laminate. The mold was then closed and curing was done at room
4 A. G. TESFAY ET AL.

temperature for 24 hours under a constant load of 2kN. Thirteen composite laminates of five plies
were prepared. Three laminates were made of pure sisal/polyester and the rest ten laminates were
hybridized with glass or carbon fibers. The total volume fractions of fibers were kept at about 45%.
Whereas, the hybridized laminates were made with two different relative volume fractions of sisal and
the hybrid fibers (about 8% and 14% of hybrid fibers, and about 37% and 30% of sisal fibers). The
actual volume fractions were calculated using equations 1, 2, 3, and 4. The mass of polyester used to
determine the actual volume fractions was revised by a mass obtained by subtracting the mass of the
fibers from the mass of the composite laminates to consider the exact volume of polyester used by
avoiding any wastage during the layup processing. The actual volume fractions, stacking sequence, and
chemicals used for sisal treatment are given in Table 1.

ms � ρg � ρm
Vs ¼ (1)
ms � ρg � ρm þ mg � ρs � ρm þ mm � ρg � ρs

mg � ρs � ρm
Vg ¼ (2)
ms � ρg � ρm þ mg � ρs � ρm þ mm � ρg � ρs

mc � ρs � ρm
Vc ¼ (3)
ms � ρc � ρm þ mc � ρs � ρm þ mm � ρc � ρs

Vf ¼ Vs þ Vg þ Vc (4)

Where Vs – volume fraction of sisal, Vg – volume fraction of glass, Vc – volume fraction of carbon
fibers, ms – mass of sisal, mg- mass of glass, mc – mass of carbon fibers, ρs – density of sisal fiber, ρg –
density of glass fiber, and ρc density of carbon fiber.
The effect of voids on the mechanical properties is not considered, as the variation in the volume of
voids among the laminates was minimized using the same manufacturing technique, curing para­
meters, compaction pressure, alignment, and volume of resin during their manufacturing.

Table 1. The chemicals used for sisal fiber treatment and the stacking sequence, orientation, and volume fraction of the laminates.
Orientation Volume fraction of samples Volume fraction of samples
of hybrid Chemical for for
fibers used for tensile testing (%) impact testing (%)
Laminate Stacking Orientation of (glass or sisal
name sequence sisal fibers carbon) treatment Vg Vs Vc Vf Vg Vs Vc Vf
T1 S-S-S-S-S 0° – Untreated 0.00 44.91 0 44.91 0.00 45.87 0 45.87
T2 S-S-S-S-S 0° – NaOH 0.00 44.62 0 44.62 0.00 46.97 0 46.97
T3 S-S-S-S-S 0° – NaHCO3 0.00 45.04 0 45.04 0.00 45.05 0 45.05
T4 S-G-S-G-S 0° 0° NaHCO3 8.38 36.38 0 44.76 8.35 35.73 0 44.08
T5 S-G-G-S-S 0° 0° NaHCO3 8.06 35.48 0 43.54 8.19 35.52 0 43.71
T6 G-G-S-S-S 0° 0° NaHCO3 7.88 36.00 0 43.88 8.39 35.90 0 44.28
T7 G-S-S-S-G 0° 0° NaHCO3 8.16 37.16 0 45.32 8.49 34.56 0 43.05
T8 G-S-G-S-G 0° 0° NaHCO3 13.30 29.81 0 43.11 13.57 29.89 0 43.46
T9 S-C-S-C-S 0° 0° NaHCO3 0 35.91 7.68 43.59 0 35.90 8.21 44.11
T10 S-C-C-S-S 0° 0° NaHCO3 0 36.31 7.84 44.15 0 35.70 8.07 43.77
T11 C-C-S-S-S 0° 0° NaHCO3 0 35.67 7.63 43.31 0 35.90 8.05 43.95
T12 C-S-S-S-C 0° 0° NaHCO3 0 38.34 7.55 45.89 0 35.75 8.10 43.85
T13 C-S-C-S-C 0° 0° NaHCO3 0 30.08 13.06 43.15 0 30.08 13.06 43.15
S – Sisal, G – glass, C – carbon, Vf – total fibers volume fraction, Vg – glass volume fraction, Vs – sisal volume fraction, Vc – carbon
volume fraction
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 5

Testing methods
Water absorption
The water absorption specimens were prepared according to ASTM D (1998). The test specimen
dimensions were 76.2 × 25.4 × 4 mm. The specimens were dried in an oven for 24 h at 50°C. After the
samples were cooled to room temperature, they were weighed and immersed in a water bath at room
temperature until saturation. Measurements were taken at different times before the samples were
taken away from the water bath after saturation on the forty-fifth day. A digital balance with
a precision of 0.01 g was used to measure the weight. During every weight measurement, the surface
of the specimens was dried using clean cotton, and measurements were taken immediately to avoid
any environmental effects. The water uptake behavior of the samples is evaluated using equation 5:
Mw M0
Ma ¼ x100% (5)
M0
where Ma is the percentage of water uptake the specimen, Mw is the weight of the wet specimen, and
M0 is the weight of the dry specimen.

Tensile test
Tensile test specimens were prepared according to ASTM D3039/D3039M (2014) standard. At least
five samples, size 250 × 15 × 3 mm, were cut from each laminate for every test. The cut edges were
polished using file and emery paper. Wet samples were prepared by soaking the specimens in a water
bath for 45 days. A universal tensile testing machine (Microcomputer Controlled Electro-hydraulic
Servo Universal Testing Machine, Model: SI-1000KN) was used to perform the tensile test. The
experimentations were performed under ambient conditions.

Impact test
Impact tests were performed using a Charpy impact tester (Pendulum Impact Testing Machine,
Model: SI-42, Impact Energy 150 J). For each test, at least five un-notched specimens with a size of
80 × 10 × 4 mm were prepared according to ISO (2010) standard. Wet samples were prepared by
soaking the specimens in water for 45 days. The samples were hammered in their flatwise and normal
direction. Tests were carried out at ambient conditions.

Results and discussions

Water absorption
Effect of chemical treatment
The effect of chemical treatments on the water absorption rate of the sisal fiber-reinforced polyester
composites is shown in Figure 2(a). The percentage of weight gain of all laminates at saturation is shown
in Table 2. The rate of water diffusion into the immersed samples was time-dependent. The samples
were saturated after 45 days. The treated laminates T2 and T3 have shown less water absorption rate
compared to the untreated laminates T1. As shown in Table 2, the weight gains are reduced from
12.51% in the untreated laminates T1 to 7.08% and 6.68% through baking soda and sodium hydroxide
treatments, respectively. This is due to the chemical treatment has reduced the hydrophilic nature of the
fiber; thereby a strong bond is created between the fibers and the polyester matrix (George, Bhagawan,
and Thomas 2012; Joseph et al. 2002). The results are in agreement with other works on the water
absorption behavior of untreated and treated natural fiber-reinforced composites (Costa and D’almeida
1999; Joseph et al. 2002). The difference in water absorption behavior between the baking soda and
sodium hydroxide treated laminates was negligible as shown in Figure 2(a).
6 A. G. TESFAY ET AL.

Figure 2. Water absorption v/s time graph: a) effect of chemical treatment b) effect of glass hybridization c) effect of carbon
hybridization.

Table 2. Percentage of water absorption at saturation of untreated, treated, and hybridized sisal/polyester composite laminates.
Laminates T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13
Average (%) 12.51 6.68 7.08 3.09 3.75 3.67 2.98 2.31 2.54 3.08 3.04 2.27 1.82
STDEV(±) 0.53 0.24 0.82 0.17 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.06 0.21 0.14 0.18 0.10 0.17

Effect of glass and carbon fiber hybridization

The effect of hybridization on the water uptake rate is shown in Figures 2(b,c). The addition of glass
and carbon plies to the sisal reinforced polyester laminates has made the composites more hydro­
phobic, thereby reducing their water absorption rate considerably. The lowest percentage of water
uptake among the hybridized laminates was noticed in the carbon hybridized laminates T13 (1.82%),
whereas the highest was in the glass hybridized laminates T5 (3.75%). The second-lowest percentage of
water uptake was also in the carbon hybridized laminates T12 (2.27%). The amount of water
absorption is observed to depend on the volume, type, and stacking sequence of the hybrid fibers.
Laminates with their skin covered by the hybrid fibers have indicated a lower water uptake rate. For
instance, the glass hybridized composite laminates T4 have less water uptake than T5, T6, and T7.
Laminates T8 has the lowest percentage of water uptake than any other glass hybridized laminates due
to the addition of one more glass layer at the core of the laminates. The percentage of water uptake of
the hybrid laminates follows the same order as T13< T12< T8< T9< T7< T11< T10< T4< T6< T5. All
carbon hybridized laminates have shown less water uptake rate than the corresponding glass hybri­
dized laminates of the same volume and stacking sequence. In some cases, carbon hybridized
composites have shown lower water uptake than higher volume of glass hybridized laminates. For
instance, laminates T12 have displayed less water uptake (2.27%) than laminates T9 (2.54%). The
percentage of water uptake of carbon hybridized laminates T13 is 21% less than the glass hybridized
laminates T8; however, both laminates have recorded the lowest water uptake rate among their hybrid
laminates.

Tensile strength
Effect of chemical treatment
The effects of chemical treatments on the tensile strength are illustrated in Figure 3. Chemical
treatment of sisal fibers has improved the tensile strength of the laminates in both dry and wet
conditions. Baking soda treatments have improved the tensile strength of dry samples by 12%,
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 7

Figure 3. (a) Average tensile strength (b) % of reduction in tensile strength.

whereas sodium hydroxide treatments let dry samples show a 10% rise in their tensile strength.
Water absorption has reduced the tensile strength of the laminates. 18.7%, 15.5%, and 15%,
respectively, reduction in tensile strength were recorded for the untreated, baking soda-treated,
and sodium hydroxide-treated wet samples. This is because moisture affects the interfacial
adhesion between the fibers and matrix and creates debonding, thus declining the tensile
strength (Athijayamani, Thiruchitrambalam, and Pazhanivel 2009). Chemical treatments have
reduced the degradation in the tensile strength of the laminates. The degradation is reduced by
17% through baking soda and 20% through sodium hydroxide treatments. This is due to
chemical treatments improving the interface adhesion property between the fibers and the
polyester matrix, thereby reducing the water uptake rate, which is the cause for the degradation
of the tensile strength.

Effect of glass and carbon fiber hybridization

The average tensile strength, comparisons on the percentage of reduction in the tensile strength, and
improvement on the degradation of the glass and carbon fiber hybridized laminates are indicated in
Figures 4 and 5. All hybridized laminates have shown higher tensile strength than the pure sisal
reinforced laminates. The extent of increment depends on the volume, type, and stacking sequence of
the hybrid fibers. Carbon hybridized laminates have shown higher tensile strength than glass hybri­
dized composite laminates of the same volume and stacking sequence. However, it is interesting to
note that the tensile strength of the carbon hybridized dry composite laminates T9, which is hybridized
with a volume of about 8% of carbon, has shown higher tensile strength than glass hybridized dry
composite laminates T8, which is hybridized with a volume of about 14% of glass. Symmetric
laminates have indicated the highest tensile strength among all laminates of the same volume and
type of hybrid fibers. That is due to symmetric laminates avoid the coupling between bending and
extension. Thus, specimens are let undergo extension and escape any bending and twisting during
tensile testing (Tesfay, Kahsay, and Senthil Kumar 2020. The symmetric laminates T4, T8, T9, and T13
have shown higher tensile strength than the other symmetric laminates of the same volume and type of
hybrid fibers. That is due to the alternately positioning of the hybrid and sisal plies provided an
efficient and uniform stress transfer at the interface of the fibers and matrix (Gupta and Deep 2019).
The first and second highest tensile strengths of 353.6 MPa and 309.4 MPa are observed in the carbon
hybridized laminates T13 and T9, respectively. The third highest tensile strength of 303.6 MPa is
8 A. G. TESFAY ET AL.

Figure 4. Glass hybridized laminates (a) Average tensile strength (b) % reduction in tensile strength (c) % reduction in degradation.

Figure 5. Carbon hybridized laminates (a) Average tensile strength (b) % reduction in tensile strength (c) % reduction in degradation.

observed in the glass hybridized laminates T8. The tensile strength of the dry glass and carbon
hybridized composite laminates follow the same order as
T13> T9> T8> T12> T11> T10> T4> T7> T5> T6. The tensile strength is observed to decline when
the laminates are immersed in water. That is due to water absorption may lead to rapid debonding,
delamination, and loss of structural integrity, thereby plasticizing the system and cause a reduction in
the tensile strength (Joseph et al. 2002). The degradation was decreased through the incorporation of
carbon and glass layers in the laminates. The lowest reduction in tensile strength was observed in the
carbon hybridized laminates T13 (2.4%). The glass hybridized laminates T8 have shown the second-
lowest reduction in tensile strength (2.6%). That is due to the outer surfaces of the laminates were
covered with the hydrophobic glass or carbon and the volume of the hybrid fibers were raised to about
14%, hence the water absorption rate is reduced. Consequently, the degradation in the tensile strength
was improved. A study on hybrid sisal/glass laminates by Gupta and Deep (2019) had found the lowest
reduction in tensile strength in laminates sequenced as T13 and T8. Surprisingly, the symmetric water-
saturated glass and carbon hybridized laminates (T4, T7, T9, and T12) have shown higher tensile
strength than the asymmetric dry laminates of the same volume and type of hybrid fibers (T5, T6, T10,
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 9

and T11). Moreover, all wet samples of carbon hybridized laminates have shown higher tensile
strength than the dry glass hybridized laminates of the same volume and stacking sequence. The
tensile strength of the water-saturated glass and carbon hybridized laminates follow the same order as
T13> T9> T8> T12> T11> T10> T4> T7> T5 > T6. However, the reduction in the tensile strength of
the water-saturated hybridized composite laminates is ordered as T13< T8< T12< T7< T9< T4< T11
< T6< T10< T5. It is clear that the volume, type, and stacking sequence of the hybrid fibers have played
a vital role in improving the degradation of the sisal fiber-reinforced laminates. The carbon hybridized
laminates T13 have shown the maximum improvement (84.7%) compared to the laminates T3.
Moreover, the glass hybridized laminates T8 have improved the degradation by 83%. Thus, carbon
fibers, at the appropriate stacking sequence and volume, are better hybrid reinforcements for the sisal
fiber-reinforced polyester composites than glass fibers for a better tensile strength at both dry and wet
conditions and minimum degradation during water immersion.

Impact strength
Effect of chemical treatment
The comparisons of the average impact strength and the effect of water absorption on the impact
strength of treated and untreated laminates are illustrated in Figure 6. Chemical treatment of sisal
fibers has improved the impact strength of the laminates in both dry and wet conditions. The dry
specimens have shown 4% and 5% increment in their impact strength through sodium hydroxide and
baking soda treatments, respectively. Baking soda treated laminates have comparably shown higher
impact strength than sodium hydroxide treated laminates. Up to 16.73% improvement in the impact
strength of alkali-treated sisal/cattail polyester commingled hybrid composites at 20% fiber weight
fractions was reported by Mbeche and Omara (2020). As in tensile tests, water absorption has reduced
the impact strength of the wet laminates. This is due to the fact that the absorption of water creates
debonding at the fiber–matrix interface, thus the resistance to fiber–matrix debonding during the
impact loading is minimized (Gupta and Deep 2019). The untreated laminates T1 have shown
a maximum reduction in impact strength (35.5%). Chemical treatments of the sisal fibers prior to
their use in the composites have lowered the degradation compared to the untreated composite
laminates. The degradation is reduced to 25.1% and 24.9%, respectively, through sodium hydroxide

Figure 6. (a) Average impact strength (b) % of reduction in impact strength.

10 A. G. TESFAY ET AL.

and baking soda treatments. The reason is due to the reduced water absorption rate of the laminates, as
shown in Table 2, thereby decreasing the debonding between the fibers and the matrix that increases
the impact strength of the wet samples.

Effect of glass and carbon fiber hybridization

The average impact strength, comparisons on the percentage of reduction in the impact strength, and
improvement on the degradation of the glass and carbon fiber-hybridized laminates are given in
Figures 7 and 8. Hybrid laminates have shown higher impact strength than the pure sisal laminates
due to the higher strength of the hybrid fibers. The extent of increment is observed to depend on the
volume, type, and stacking sequence of the hybrid fibers. Under dry conditions, the highest impact
strength (316.4 kJ/m2), which represents an increase of about 87%, was observed in the carbon
hybridized laminates T13. The second-highest impact strength (287.4 kJ/m2), which represents an
increase of about 70%, was observed in the glass hybridized laminates T8. Moreover, laminates with
a higher volume of hybrid fibers (about 14%) have shown higher impact strength than any other
laminates with a lower volume of hybrid fibers (about 8%) of any stacking sequence in contrary to the
tensile tests. Asymmetric laminates T5 and T10 whose glass and carbon fiber plies were put toward the
tensile portion, with respect to the loading, have shown the highest impact strength among the laminates
of the same volume and type hybrid fibers. A similar investigation was reported by Pavithran et al.
(1991). Under wet conditions, even though the impact strength for all hybridized composite laminates
was observed to be lowered compared to their dry conditions, the level of degradation is observed to
reduce after the glass or carbon fibers are incorporated into the laminates. Laminate T13 has indicated
the lowest reduction in impact strength (2.9%). The second-lowest reduction of 3.4% is observed in the
glass fiber hybridized laminate T8. The reduction in the impact strength of the water-saturated
hybridized laminates follows the order: T13< T8< T12< T7< T9< T4< T11< T10< T6 < T5.
Laminates whose outer surfaces are covered with hybrid fibers have shown a lower reduction in their
impact strength. Moreover, increasing the volume of the hybrid fibers has improved the degradation in
the impact strength of the laminates. It is enabled to reduce the degradation in the impact strength of
water-aged laminates from 24.9% in the baking soda treated laminate T3 to 2.9% in the about 14%
volume of carbon fiber hybridized laminates T13. That represents a 91.7% improvement in the
degradation of the water-aged laminates. Thus, tolerable degradation in the impact strength of the
water-aged laminates can be achieved through proper adjustments in the volume, stacking sequence,
and type of the hybrid fibers. Carbon hybridized laminates have shown higher impact strength and
a lower reduction in impact strength than the same volume of glass hybridized dry and wet laminates.

Figure 7. Glass hybridized laminates a) Average impact strength b) % reduction in impact strength c) % reduction in degradation.
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 11

Figure 8. Carbon hybridized laminates a) Average impact strength b) % reduction in impact strength c) % reduction in degradation.

This could be due to carbon fibers being stronger and more resistant to water absorption than glass
fibers. For instance, the maximum impact strength achieved in the laminates made with hybridization of
about 8% volume of carbon fiber (T10) is more than 13% higher than the highest impact strength among
the same volume of glass hybridized laminates (T5). Moreover, the lowest degradation in the impact
strength in about 8% volume of carbon hybridized laminates (T12) is more than 18% lower than the
lowest degradation among the laminates hybridized with about 8% volume of glass fibers (T7). And for
about 14% volume hybridized laminates, carbon hybridized laminates (T13) have shown about 10.1%
higher impact strength and about 15% lower reduction in impact strength than the glass fiber hybridized
laminates (T8). Thus, as in tensile test, carbon fibers are preferable reinforcement hybrid fibers for the
sisal fiber-reinforced polyester composites of glass for a better impact strength at both dry and wet
conditions and minimum degradation.

Conclusion
Conclusions drawn from the study are given as follows:

● The water absorption rate of the untreated sisal reinforced polyester composites was about
12.51%. The water absorption rate of the laminates is reduced to 6.68% and 7.08%, respectively,
through sodium hydroxide and baking soda treatment. The rate of water absorption is further
reduced to 1.82% and 2.31%, respectively, in laminates T13 and T8.
○ The tensile and impact strength of the laminates are improved through hybridization and
chemical treatments in both dry and wet conditions. Baking soda treatments have
improved the tensile strength of dry samples by 12%, whereas sodium hydroxide treat­
ments let dry samples show a 10% rise in their tensile strength. The dry specimens have
also shown 4% and 5%, respectively, increment in their impact strength through sodium
hydroxide and baking soda treatments. Moreover, through the incorporation of about 14%
of carbon, almost 166% in the tensile and 87% in impact strength improvements were
observed for the dry samples. The tensile and impact strength of the composite laminates
was degraded due to water absorption. Maximum reduction of 84.7% and 91.7%, respec­
tively, in the degradation of the tensile and impact strengths were discovered in the carbon
hybridized laminates T13.
12 A. G. TESFAY ET AL.

○ Carbon hybridized laminates have shown higher tensile and impact strength, a lower water
absorption, and lower degradation in tensile and impact strength than the glass hybridized
laminates. For instance, carbon hybridized laminates (T13) have shown about 10.1% higher
impact strength and about 15% lower reduction in impact strength than the same volume of
glass hybridized laminates (T8).

Acknowledgments
The authors are glad to appreciate the School of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering and School of Civil Engineering
at Ethiopian Institute of Technology Mekelle (EIT-M), Mekelle University for helping us by providing materials,
laboratory service, and research funding.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Abrha Gebregergs Tesfay http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4434-3315
Mulu Bayray Kahsay http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0201-3334
P.S. Senthil Kumar http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0762-9162

References
Assarar, M., D. Scida, A. El Mahi, C. Poilâne, and R. Ayad. 2011. Influence of water ageing on mechanical properties and
damage events of two reinforced composite materials: Flax–fibers and glass–fiber. Materials & Design 32:788–95.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2010.07.024.
ASTM D. 1998. Standard test method for water absorption of plastics, 570–98. PA, USA: ASTM International.
ASTM D3039/D3039M. 2014. Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer matrix composite materials. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Athijayamani, A., M. Thiruchitrambalam, and B. Pazhanivel. 2009. Effect of moisture absorption on the mechanical
properties of randomly oriented natural fibers/polyester hybrid composite. Materials Science and Engineering A
517:344–53. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2009.04.027.
Chaitanya, S., and I. Singh. 2018. Sisal fiber-reinforced green composites: Effect of ecofriendly fiber treatment. Polymer
Composites 39 (12):4310–21. doi:10.1002/pc.24511.
Chaudhary, V., P. K. Bajpai, and S. Maheshwari. 2020. Effect of moisture absorption on the mechanical performance of
natural fiber-reinforced woven hybrid bio-composites. Journal of Natural Fibers 17 (1):84–100. doi:10.1080/
15440478.2018.1469451.
Costa, F. H. M. M., and J. R. M. D’almeida. 1999. Effect of water absorption on the mechanical properties of sisal and jute
fiber composites. Polymer - Plastics Technology and Engineering 38 (5):1081–94. doi:10.1080/03602559909351632.
Dhakal, H. N., Z. Y. Zhang, R. Guthrie, J. Macmullen, and N. Bennett. 2013. Development of flax/carbon fiber hybrid
composites for enhanced properties. Carbohydrate Polymers 96 (1):1–8. doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.03.074.
Fiore, V., G. D. Bella, and A. Valenza. 2015. The effect of alkaline treatment on mechanical properties of kenaf fibers and
their epoxy composites. Composites Part B: Engineering 68:14–21. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.08.025.
Fiore, V., T. Scalici, F. Nicoletti, G. Vitale, M. Prestipino, and A. Valenza. 2016. A new eco-friendly chemical treatment
of natural fibers: Effect of sodium bicarbonate on properties of sisal fiber and its epoxy composites. Composites Part B:
Engineering 85:150–60. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.09.028.
George, J., S. S. Bhagawan, and S. Thomas. 2012. Improved interactions in chemically modified pineapple–leaf–fiber-
reinforced polyethylene composites. Composite Interfaces 5 (3):201–23. doi:10.1163/156855498X00153.
Gupta, M. K., and V. Deep. 2019. Effect of water absorption and stacking sequences on the properties of hybrid sisal/
glass fiber reinforced polyester composite. Journal of Materials: Design and Applications 233 (10):2045–56.
ISO. 2010. Plastics Determination of charpy impact properties Part 1: Non-instrumented impact test, 179–1. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
Jarukumjorn, K., and N. Suppakarn. 2009. Effect of glass fiber hybridization on properties of sisal fiber–polypropylene
composites. Composites Part B: Engineering 40 (7):623–27. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2009.04.007.
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 13

Joseph, P. V., M. S. Rabello, L. H. C. Mattoso, K. Joseph, and S. Thomas. 2002. Environmental effects on the degradation
behavior of sisal fiber reinforced polypropylene composites. Composites Science and Technology 62:1357–72.
doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(02)00080-5.
Krishna, K. V., and K. Kanny. 2016. The effect of treatment on kenaf fiber using green approach and their reinforced
epoxy composites. Composites Part B: Engineering 104:111–17. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.08.010.
Mbeche, S. M., and T. Omara. 2020. Effects of alkali treatment on the mechanical and thermal properties of sisal/cattail
polyester commingled composites. PeerJournal Materials Science 2:e5. doi:10.7717/peerj-matsci.5.
Melkamu, A., M. B. Kahsay, and A. G. Tesfay. 2019. Mechanical and water-absorption properties of sisal fiber (Agave
sisalana)-reinforced polyester composite. Journal of Natural Fibers 16 (6):877–85. doi:10.1080/
15440478.2018.1441088.
Pavithran, C., P. S. Mukherjee, M. Brahmakumar, and A. D. Damodaran. 1991. Impact properties of sisal-glass hybrid
laminates. Journal of Materials Science 26 (2):455–59. doi:10.1007/BF00576542.
Premnath, A. A. 2019. Impact of surface treatment on the mechanical properties of sisal and jute reinforced with epoxy
resin natural fiber hybrid composites. Journal of Natural Fibers 16 (5):718–28. doi:10.1080/15440478.2018.1432002.
Sanjay, M. R., G. R. Arpitha, P. Senthamaraikannan, M. Kathiresan, M. A. Saibalaji, and B. Yogesha. 2019. The hybrid
effect of jute/kenaf/E-glass woven fabric epoxy composites for medium load applications: Impact, inter-laminar
strength, and failure surface characterization. Journal of Natural Fibers 16 (4):600–12.
Tesfay, A. G., M. B. Kahsay, and P. S. Senthil Kumar. 2020. Effects of chemical treatment, hybridization, and hybrid fiber
stacking sequence and orientation on tensile and impact strength of continuous sisal fiber reinforced polyester
composites. Journal of Natural Fibers 1–13. doi:10.1080/15440478.2020.1821283.
Yahaya, R., S. M. Sapuan, M. Jawaid, Z. Leman, and E. S. Zainudin. 2015. Effect of layering sequence and chemical
treatment on the mechanical properties of woven kenaf–aramid hybrid laminated composites. Materials & Design
67:173–79. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2014.11.024.