See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279565000

Failure Mechanisms of Sisal Fibres in Composites

Article  in  Advanced Composites Letters · January 1999

DOI: 10.1177/096369359900800102

CITATIONS READS

16 137

5 authors, including:

Shu-Lin Bai Y.-W. Mai

Peking University The University of Sydney
115 PUBLICATIONS   1,560 CITATIONS    1,169 PUBLICATIONS   36,134 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Investigation on Mechanical properties of metal matrix composites View project

GRAPHENE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shu-Lin Bai on 30 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MORPHOLOGICAL STUDY OF SISAL FIBRES

S.-L. Baia, R. K.Y. Lib, Y.-W. Maic, C.M.L. Wub

a
Department of Mechanics and Engineering Sciences, Peking University
Beijing 100871, People’s Republic of China, bai@mech.pku.edu.cn
b
Department of Physics and Materials Science, City University of Hong Kong
83 Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong
c
Centre for Advanced Materials Technology, Sydney University, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

(Received ; accepted )

ABSTRACT
A sisal fibre has microstructures very different from those of synthetic fibres. The special microstructures
consist of parallel cells and a cuticle-interface in the form of a continuous network around each cell. The flexible
interface and solid cells play an independent role to toughen and strengthen the sisal fibre, respectively. Upon
loading, the cell can behave in a brittle or a ductile fashion. The main failure mechanisms of a sisal fibre are the
pullout and uncoiling of cells and the debonding of a not very strong interface/cell interface. Therefore, debonding
of this interface represents the first initial damage of a sisal fibre composite.

KEYWORDS sisal fibre, morphology, microstructures, interfacial debonding

1. INTRODUCTION glass or carbon fibre is its special microstructures

There is much recent interest to develop new
advanced composites that degrade in nature. Natural
fibre composites are attractive to achieve such an
objective. With increasing scientific input, several
natural fibres can become as important as synthetic
glass and carbon fibres.
As a reinforcement in composites, natural fibres have
many advantages besides being degradable in nature,
for example, lightweight, high specific strength and
stiffness, low abrasion and abundance in nature, etc.
Among the natural fibres in use, sisal fibres have
more attractive properties than jute, hemp, coir and
banana, etc. Much attention in the past on sisal fibre
composites has been in the following areas: sisal fibre
reinforced thermoplastic and thermoset composites
[1-5], sisal cement/cement composites [6,7], sisal-
glass hybrid fibre polymer composites [8], impact
properties [9], temperature effect [10], aging effect
[11] and polymer impregnation in sisal fibre [12],
etc. Although a lot of research was carried out on
sisal fibre composites, as noted in the above cited
references, much work remains to understand their
physical, chemical and mechanical properties.
One large difference between sisal fibre and synthetic
that control the mechanical behaviour and property
profile of sisal fibre and its composites. In this short
communication, an attempt is made to reveal the
morphology of sisal fibres and relate their particular
microstructures to the mechanical properties.
2. CONSTITUENTS AND
MICROSTRUCTURES OF SISAL FIBERS
Sisal fibre is a hard fibre extracted from the leaves
of the sisal plant, which is widely grown in tropical
and sub-tropical countries of North and South
Americas, the West Indies and the Far East. A sisal
plant can produce about 200-250 leaves before
flowering, each of which contains 1000-1200 fibre
bundles. The leaf is composed of 4% fibre, 0.75%
cuticle, 8% dry matter and 87.25% water [13]. The
sisal fibre contains three types of fibres [14]:
mechanical, ribbon and xylem fibres. The mechanical
fibres are the most predominant and their fineness
dictates the grading and general commercial use of
sisal fibres. Xylem fibres form part of the composite
fibre bundle and have an irregular shape. The
mechanical fibres occur around the periphery of the
leaf. While the ribbon fibres occur in association with
the conducting tissues in the median line of the leaf,
separated from the xylem fibres by the vascular

Advanced Composites Letters, Vol.11, No.3, 2002 123

 S.-L. Bai, R. K.Y. Li, Y.-W. Mai, C.M.L. Wu

Fig.1: Schematic of the cross-section of a sisal fibre [15]

bundles. A single sisal fibre is shown in Fig.1 [15] in constituents may be different for the sisal plants
which it can be seen that the sisal fibre consists of grown in different regions of the world. The cellulose
several hundred or so parallel tubular cells. The cells content is much higher than other constituents and
are hollow and the cell wall is a composite structure so it determines the strength of a sisal fibre at room
of lignocellulosic material reinforced by helical temperature [19]. Cellulose is a hydrophilic glucan
microfibrillar bands of cellulose. The external surface polymer consisting of a linear chain of 1.4-b-bonded
of the cell wall is, however, covered by a layer of Table 1:Chemical constituents of sisal fibre [18]
lignaceous material and waxy substances that bond
the fibre cell to its adjacent neighbours. This surface &RPSRVLWLRQ &RQWHQW:W
will not, therefore, form a strong bond with a 0RLVWXUH 
polymeric matrix. Consequently, to improve
interfacial bonding between a sisal fibre and polymer &HOOXORVH 
matrix, modification of the fibre surface is essential. +HPLFHOOXORVH 
3HFWLQ 
Analysis of the x-ray diffraction spectrum indicates
$VK 
that the sisal fibre has high crystallinity and the (002)
planes of the sisal crystalline lattice are preferentially /LJQLQ 
oriented at an angle of 10.6° to the fibre axis with an 6ROXEOH 
orientation extent of 85.5% [16]. The crystallinity
VXEVWDQFHV
of untreated sisal fibre was found to be 62.8% and
it became 66.2% after 4 h heat treatment at )DWDQGZD[ 
150°C[17].
anhydroglucose units [20]. The large amount of
Table 1 shows the chemical constituents of a sisal hydroxyl groups that occur throughout the structure
fibre. Each of the constituents is present in the fibre accounts for the hydrophilic nature of cellulose. The
in a definite ratio and has different coefficients of hemicellulose is not homogeneous and generally
thermal expansion. However, the ratio of the consists of polysaccharides of relatively low
124 Advanced Composites Letters, Vol.11, No.3, 2002
 Morphological Study of Sisal Fibres
molecular weight, i.e., hexoses such as galactose and
mannose and pentoses, such as xylose and uronic
acid. The lignin is generally regarded as three-
dimensional polycondensate of dehydrogeneration
products of hydroxy and methoxy cinnamyl alcohols
[21].
3. MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF SISAL
FIBERS
The sisal fibre is a long fibre whose length can reach
up to 1.5 m and thickness to 0.03 m. Its size is not
identical along its length. Hence, the tensile properties
of sisal fibres are not uniform in the length direction
[22]. The root and lower part have low tensile
strength and modulus and high fracture strain. The
fibre becomes stronger and stiffer at mid-span and
the tip has moderate strength and stiffness. Besides,
the sisal fibre is a viscoelastic material, so its
mechanical properties depend on the strain rate. With
the age of growth, the dimension of sisal fibres
changes, such as the size of cell and its wall. Also,
the tensile strength, tensile modulus and toughness
of sisal fibres increase with age [10]. Another
important factor that affects the mechanical
properties of natural fibres is the angle formed by
the micro-fibrils in the cell wall with the fibre axis. It
was shown that composites reinforced with helically
wound micro-fibres of glass, their toughness
increases with the winding angle to a maximum at
15-20° and then gradually decreases with angles
[23]. For a sisal fibre, the angle agrees well with the
above observations and imparts good mechanical
7DEOH3URSHUWLHVRIVLVDOILEUHV>@
:LGWKRUGLDPHWHUmP 
'HQVLW\NJP 

0LFURILEULOODUDQJOHq
&HOOXORVHOLJQLQFRQWHQW 
0RGXOXV(*1P 
7HQVLOHVWUHQJWK87601P  

(ORQJDWLRQ 
Advanced Composites Letters, Vol.11, No.3, 2002
properties to the fibre. Table 2 gives typical
properties of sisal fibres. Note that the properties of
sisal fibres may be different from those given in Table
2 because, as said before, different region of the
sisal plant has different microstructures, chemical
compositions and hence mechanical properties.
4. MORPHOLOGY OF SISAL FIBER
Consider the sisal fibres extracted from a 5-year
old sisal plant grown in South China. The
morphology is studied at the cell level and related to
the physical and mechanical properties of the fibres.
Fig.2 shows a single sisal fibre along its length
direction. The total length of the fibre is over one
meter, with the maximum size of cross-section of
about 200mm. It can be seen that there are
longitudinal cracks (dark lines) on the surface, which
are damages to the cuticle caused by the extraction
of a sisal fibre from the leaf of a sisal plant. If fibres
are extracted from the matrix of a sisal-polymer
composite, eg, LDPE, their surfaces will be also
degraded exposing the parallel cells, ie, the outside
cuticle of the sisal fibres is removed [4]. This
phenomenon reveals a failure mechanism of sisal
polymer/polymer composites. That is, if the adhesion
between the sisal fibre cuticle and polymer matrix is
good, debonding will occur at the interface of cuticle/
cell, not of a cuticle/polymer. The adhesion of the
cuticle to cell in sisal fibres is not strong. It is therefore
not difficult, by fibre surface modification, to obtain
a stronger cuticle/ polymer interface than that of
cuticle/cell. Thus, the initial failure of a sisal fibre/
polymer composite will always be debonding at the
cuticle/cell interface. Along the fibre length, there are
‘bamboo knots’ that appear periodically and this
seems to be an intrinsic structure of sisal fibres. The
‘bamboo knots’ make the sisal fibre not straight along
its length and tensile tests of aligned sisal reinforced-
reinforced composites show that fracture of the
fibres takes place at a position between two knots.
It is inferred that the reinforcing effect with long sisal
fibres in polymer composites is not as effective as
well aligned long glass or carbon fibres.
125
 S.-L. Bai, R. K.Y. Li, Y.-W. Mai, C.M.L. Wu

Fig.2: A sisal fibre along its length showing the “bamboo knots”

Fig.3 shows a cross-section of a single sisal fibre in
which the cells have a polygonal circumference and
a quasi-circular hollow. The boundary of the cells
can be seen more clearly under polarized light [12].
The size of cells is not constant as given in Figs. 4a
and 4b. A twin-hollow cell is shown in Fig. 5, which
is evidently a particular case. Fig. 6 illustrates the
fracture surface of a sisal fibre by tension. A single
cell was pulled out of the single sisal fibre. The root
of the cell is still embedded in the single sisal fibre
and the lower part covered with the cuticle. The lower
part is thicker than the tip of the cell, indicating peeling
of the cuticle (Fig. 7). The cell has an uneven fracture
surface and seems to be ruptured by large
deformation(Fig. 8). The cell can also undergo large
deformation by torsion [25]. The phenomenon of
cell pullout, that is, debonding of one cell from
adjacent ones, is testimony to the weak adhesion
between the cells.

Fig.3: SEM photomicrograph showing the cross-section of a sisal fibre

126 Advanced Composites Letters, Vol.11, No.3, 2002

 Morphological Study of Sisal Fibres

(a) (b)

Fig.4: Cross-sections of two cells showing different sizes

Fig. 5: A single cell with two hollows Fig.6: Failure surface of a single sisal fibre by tension
(pullout of one cell)

The fracture surface of the cells may be planar as
shown in Fig.9. In this case, the cell seems to be cut
down and its deformation is small. It can be seen
from Fig. 9 that the inside surface of a cell is
periodically rough and uneven. This structure is
possibly related to the spiral arrangement of micro-
fibrils in the cell wall. Due to the spiral structure,
there is yet another failure mechanism called
“uncoiling” of the cell as shown by the micrograph
in Fig. 10. The failure is along the coiling path of the
micro-fibrils.
Advanced Composites Letters, Vol.11, No.3, 2002
Between two adjacent cells, there exists a thin layer
of material (called “cuticle”) approximately 1 mm
thick, which can be regarded as the interface of a
sisal fibre. This cuticle interface forms a continuous
network around the cells as shown in Fig. 11. Upon
loading, debonding of the interface from the cell will
happen easily owing to the weak adhesion between
them. The interface can split into small fibrils astride
adjacent cells as shown in Fig. 12. Debonding of
the cuticle/cell interface can also be seen in the same
127
 S.-L. Bai, R. K.Y. Li, Y.-W. Mai, C.M.L. Wu
Fig.7: The root of the pulled out cell in Fig.6
showing drawing of the cell (as its diameter becomes
smaller near the tip) and peeling of the cuticle interface
from the cell surface
figure. Hence, the interfacial adhesion strength of the
cuticle/ cell is a key parameter to control the initial
damage of a sisal fibre. This strength is, however,
intrinsic to the sisal fibre extracted from a given sisal
plant and cannot be changed. The microstructures
of a sisal fibre may be characterized by a
combination of flexible cuticle interface network and
Fig.9: Brittle fracture of a single cell in sisal fibre
(No cell pullout or drawing)
128
Fig.8: The tip of a pulled out cell indicating ductile failure
cells. The cells bear the external applied loading,
while the cuticle interface connects the cells and
absorbs substantial energy as it undergoes large
deformation.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Sisal fibre has much more complex microstructures
Fig.10: Uncoiling of a cell
Advanced Composites Letters, Vol.11, No.3, 2002
 Morphological Study of Sisal Fibres
Fig.11: Continuous network of the cuticle interface
than synthetic fibres. Two major constituents of the
sisal fibre are the cells and their interface (the cuticle).
The cell takes up the applied force and can behave
in a ductile or brittle manner depending on how it is
loaded. It can be pulled out and uncoiled,
representing the major failure mechanisms of a sisal
fibre. The cuticle interface forms a continuous
network around the cells and is very flexible to
undergo large deformations. Its main role is to
connect the adjacent cells in a bundle. The interface
of the cuticle/cell can be easily debonded. Debonding
is considered to be the first stage of damage of a
sisal fibre and sisal fibre reinforced composites. For
a review of sisal fibre composites, the effects of fibre
surface treatment on mechanical properties,
manufacturing techniques, etc, readers are referred
to the work by Li, Mai and Ye [26].
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the Research Grants
Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region, China (Project No. 9040422). Y-W Mai
would also thank the Australian Research Council
for its support on the interface project at Sydney
University.
Advanced Composites Letters, Vol.11, No.3, 2002
Fig.12: Fracture surface of a sisal fibre illustrating
characteristic features of debonding between cuticle
interface and cell as well as splitting of the interface
astride the cells
References:
1. Dalvag, H., C. Klason and H. E. Stromvall, Inter. J.
Polym. Mater., 11(1985), 9
2. Joseph, K., S. Thomas and C. Pavithran, J. Reinf. Plast.
Comp., 12 (1993), 139-155
3. Maldas, D., B. V. Kokta, R. G. Raj and S. T. Sean,
Mater. Sci. Engg., A104 (1988), 235
4. Joseph, K., S. Thomas, C. Pavithran and M.
Brahmakumar, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 47 (1993), 1731-
1739
5. Rong, M. Z., Zhang, M. Q., Liu, Y., Yang, G. C. and
Zeng, H. M., Compos. Sci. Technol.,60/10 (2001), 1437-
1447
6. Bessell, T. J. and S. M. Mutuli, J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 1
(1982), 244-246
7. Mujumdar, A. J., RILEM Symposium, London,
September, (1975), 279-313
8. Kalaprasad, G., S. Thomas, C. Pavithran, N. R.
Neelakantan and S. Balakrishnan, J. Reinf. Plast.
Comp., 15 (1996), 48-73
9. Pavithran, C., P. S. Mukherjee, M. Brahmakumar,
and A. D. Damodaran, J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 6 (1987), 882-
884
10. Chand, N. and S. A. R. Hashmi, J. Mater. Sci., 28
(1993), 6724-6728
11. Joseph, K. and S. Thomas, Comp. Sci. Tech. 53 (1995),
99-110
12. Barkakaty, B. C. and A. Robson, J. Appl. Polym. Sci.,
24 (1979), 269-283
13. Murherjee, P. S. and K. G. Satyanarayana, J. Mater.
Sci.,19 (1984), 3925
14. Nutman, F. J., Empire J. Exp. Agric. 5(1936)75
15. Bisanda, E. T. N. and M. P. Ansell, J. Mater. Sci. 27
(1992), 1690-1700
129
 S.-L. Bai, R. K.Y. Li, Y.-W. Mai, C.M.L. Wu

16. Zhang, M., S. Zhu, H. Zeng and Y. Liu, Die

Angewandte Makromolekulare Chemie 222 (1994),
147-163
17. Yang, G., H. Zeng, J. Li, N. Jian and W. Zhang, Acta
Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Sunyatseni, 35
(1996), 53-57
18. Collective Work of Dong Fang Hong State Farm in
Guangdong, Sisal Fibres, People’s Press of Guangzhou,
China, 1976(in chinese)
19. Greenbery, A. R., A. Mehling, M. Lee and J. H. Bock,
J. Mater. Sci., 24(1989)2549
20. Hua, L., P. Zadorecki and P. Flodin, Polym. Comp., 8
(1987), 199-207
21. Chand, N., P. K. Tiwary and P. K. Rohatgi, J. Mater.
Sci., 23 (1988), 381-387
22. Bisanda, E. T. N., Ph.D Thesis, University of Bath
(1991)
23. Gordon, J. E. and G. Jeronimidis, Phil. Trans. R. Soc.
Lond., A294 (1980), 545
24. Chand, N., S. Sood, K. G. Satyanarayana and P. K.
Rohatgi, J. Sci. and Ind. Res., 43 (1984), 489
25. Bai, S. L., R. K.-Y. Li, L. C.-M. Wu, H.-M. Zeng and Y.-
W. Mai, J. Mater. Sci. Lett., 17 (1998), 1805
26. Li, Y., Y.-W. Mai and L. Ye, Compos. Sci. Technol., 60/
11 (200), 2037-2055

130 Advanced Composites Letters, Vol.11, No.3, 2002

View publication stats