# Engineering Properties of Waste Badminton String Fiber

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Methodology

## 3. Experimental Methods

#### 3.1. Microstructural Analysis

#### 3.1.1. Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy

^{−1}resolution, which reduces the environmental variations as it has a built-in automatic dehumidifier.

#### 3.1.2. X-ray Diffraction

#### 3.1.3. Scanning Electron Microscopy and Energy Dispersion Spectroscopy

#### 3.2. Mechanical Study

## 4. Results and Discussion

#### 4.1. Microstructural Analysis

#### 4.1.1. Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy

^{−1}can be attributed to the amino group of N-H stretch [39], and further medium peaks observed at 2920 and 2851 cm

^{−1}show the vibration of alkane groups of asymmetric CH

_{2}and symmetric CH

_{2}stretch, respectively. The two strong peaks at 1635 and 1545 cm

^{−1}were detected due to amide I and II bands [40]. Generally, the C=O stretch forms the peak between 1760 and 1665 cm

^{−1}

_{.}However, here, the peak obtained at 1635 cm

^{−1}for the C=O stretch is due to the bonding of the amino I group with the hydrogen bond. The amide II band peak at 1545 cm

^{−1}is due to the appearance of the N-H stretch. All the band values are given in Table 1. The peaks after 1500 cm

^{−1}are of low intensity and the observance is weak. Hence, from the above results, the membrane shows a clear picture of the carbonyl group bonded with the hydroxyl group. This bonding reveals that the nylon 6,6 material is in its purest form.

#### 4.1.2. X-ray Spectroscopy

#### 4.1.3. Scanning Electron Microscopy and Energy Dispersion Spectroscopy

#### 4.1.4. Determination of Net Cross-Sectional Area

#### 4.2. Mechanical Study

#### 4.2.1. Results of the Fibers by Varying Strands

- (a)
- Tensile Strength of the Fiber with One Strand

^{3}, with a standard deviation of 9.036 N.mm/mm

^{3}; and for old fibers, the average EA is 39.95 N.mm/mm

^{3}, with a standard deviation of 1.33 N.mm/mm

^{3}. As the stress and strain values of old fibers are lower than that of new fibers, a reduction of 37.63% in EA is observed in old fibers [30].

- (b)
- Tensile Strength of the Fiber with Three Strands

^{3}with a standard deviation of 3.60 N.mm/mm

^{3}, and for old fibers, the average EA is 33.65 N.mm/mm

^{3}with a standard deviation of 3.09 N.mm/mm

^{3}. As the stress and strain values of old fibers are lower than that of new fibers, a reduction of 39.19% in EA is observed in old fibers.

- (c)
- Tensile Strength of the Fibers with Five Strands

^{3}, with a standard deviation of 12.56 N.mm/mm

^{3}, and for old fibers, the average EA is 40.09 N.mm/mm

^{3}, with a standard deviation of 2.78 N.mm/mm

^{3}. As the stress and strain values of old fibers are lower than that of new fibers, a reduction of 41.07% in EA is observed in old fibers.

- (d)
- Residual Force loss ratio

_{u}) and the force at different stages of break (F

_{ur}) are given in Table 5. For new fiber samples with three strands, the residual force loss percentage was 0, 35.22, 68.40, and 100.00; and for old fiber samples with three strands, the residual force loss percentage was 0, 32.48, 64.45, and 100. Similarly for samples with five strands, the residual force loss percentage of 0, 20.90, 36.44, 42.79, 61.72, 100.00 for new fibers and 0, 27.7, 40.40, 58.95, 63.88, 100 for old fibers were observed as shown in Figure 11. This loss in force is due to the successive failure of individual strands. From the results in Table 6, for multi-strand fibers (five in numbers), a minimum % of difference in observed in the residual force loss ratio as 6.35 and 4.93, which is due to the sudden failure of successive strands within a limited period.

#### 4.2.2. Results of the Fibers by Varying Gauge Lengths

#### Same Gauge Length with Different Fibers

- (a)
- Results of the Fiber with a 100 mm Gauge Length

^{3}, with a standard deviation of 23.58 N.mm/mm

^{3}. However, the maximum and minimum values of tensile stress for old fibers with a 100 mm gauge length are 644.37 and 458.64 MPa, respectively. Additionally, the average maximum stress for old fibers is 537.40 Mpa (standard deviation of 64.23 Mpa) and its corresponding average strain is 0.19. The average EA for old fibers is 47.06 N.mm/mm

^{3}, with a standard deviation of 33.17 N.mm/mm

^{3}. The typical stress–strain graph of the fibers with a 100 mm gauge length is represented in Figure 12a,b. The difference in average stress and average EA between the new and old fibers is 17.13% and 29.15%, respectively.

- (b)
- Results of the Fiber with a 80 mm Gauge Length

^{3}, with a standard deviation of 32.34 N.mm/mm

^{3}. However, the maximum and minimum values of tensile stress for old fibers with a 80 mm gauge length are 666.15 and 493.74 MPa, respectively. Additionally, the average maximum stress for old fibers is 596.65 MPa (standard deviation of 56.19 MPa) and its corresponding average strain is 0.25. The average EA for old fibers is 69.86 N.mm/mm

^{3}, with a standard deviation of 14.98 N.mm/mm

^{3}. The typical stress–strain graph of the fibers with a 100 mm gauge length is represented in Figure 12c,d. The difference in average stress and average EA between the new and old fibers is 14.16% and 17.24%, respectively.

- (c)
- Results of the Fiber with a 60 mm Gauge Length

^{3}, with a standard deviation of 24.05 N.mm/mm

^{3}. However, the maximum and minimum values of tensile stress for old fibers with a 60 mm gauge length are 708.81 and 534.88 MPa, respectively. Additionally, the average maximum stress for old fibers is 625.55 MPa (standard deviation of 62.88 MPa) and its corresponding average strain is 0.28. The average EA for old fibers is 79.67 N.mm/mm

^{3}, with a standard deviation of 21.05 N.mm/mm

^{3}. The typical stress–strain graph of the fibers with a 60 mm gauge length is represented in Figure 12e,f. The difference in average stress and average EA between the new and old fibers is 16.48% and 20.00%, respectively.

#### Same Fibers with Different Gauge Lengths

- (a)
- Results of new fiber

- (b)
- Results of old fiber

#### 4.2.3. Failure of the Fibers after Tensile Testing

#### 4.2.4. Young’s Modulus of Fiber

#### 4.2.5. Validation of Results by Weibull Distribution

^{th}value from the number of the fibers tested (N) is given by Equation (4).

_{i}is the probability corresponding to the i

^{th}value. Substituting Equation (4) in Equation (3) gives Equation (5).

_{Avg}) is approximately 6%. From Figure 15a,b, a linear trend for new and old fibers is observed, which indicates an increase in the Weibull modulus with a decrease in gauge length [52].

## 5. Comparison of the Tensile Strength of WBSF with Other Recycled Nylon Fibers

## 6. Conclusions

- Microstructural analysis using EDS, FTIR, and XRD reveals that nylon 6,6 is the purest form of the fiber.
- From the SEM imaging of the fibers, the overall diameter and the net cross-sectional area are 799.10 μm and 504,786.30 μm
^{2}, respectively, for new fibers and 776.30 μm and 498,125.00 μm^{2}, respectively, for old fibers. - From the various strand fibers, the average energy absorption of a single fiber ranges from 68.04 to 55.34 N.mm/mm
^{3}for new fibers and 40.09 to 33.65 N.mm/mm^{3}for old fibers. - The pattern of the residual force loss percentage for new and old fibers with three strands was similar and calculated as 0, 35.22, 68.40, 100.00 and 0, 32.48, 64.45, and 100, respectively.
- The pattern of the residual force loss percentage for new and old fibers with five strands was similar and calculated as 0, 20.90, 36.44, 42.79, 61.72, and 100.00, and 0, 27.7, 40.40, 58.95, 63.88, and 100.00, respectively.
- From the varying gauge lengths, the difference in the average stress and average energy absorption between the new and old fibers is 17.13% and 29.15% for a 100 mm gauge length, 14.16% and 17.24% for a 80 mm gauge length, and 16.48% and 20.00% for a 60 mm length, respectively.
- The Young’s modulus of new and old fibers is 4870.00 and 4843.50 MPa, respectively, and no significant difference was observed.
- The Weibull modulus (m) varies between 5.27 and 9.17, which shows a lower variability of tensile test results for both new and old fibers.
- The tensile strength of WBSF is 490.00 MPa, which is higher when compared to other recycled nylon fibers.
- Therefore, the feasibility of incorporating WBSF in polymer and cement matrices would be a better idea, which would effectively improve the toughness and impact strength.
- Furthermore, the use of recycled fibers from industrial or post-consumer waste offers additional advantages of waste reduction and resource conservation. These advantages can be realized through the incorporation of WBSF.

## 7. Patents

## Supplementary Materials

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Kanan, M.; Wannassi, B.; Barham, A.S.; Ben Hassen, M.; Assaf, R. The Quality of Blended Cotton and Denim Waste Fibres: The Effect of Blend Ratio and Waste Category. Fibers
**2022**, 10, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Farinha, C.B.; Silvestre, J.D.; de Brito, J.; Veiga, M.D.R. Life cycle assessment of mortars with incorporation of industrial wastes. Fibers
**2019**, 7, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Signorini, C.; Volpini, V. Mechanical performance of fiber reinforced cement composites including fully-recycled plastic fibers. Fibers
**2021**, 9, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Maia Pederneiras, C.; Veiga, R.; de Brito, J. Impact Resistance of Rendering Mortars with Natural and Textile-Acrylic Waste Fibres. Fibers
**2022**, 10, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pachideh, G.; Gholhaki, M. An experimental investigation into effect of temperature rise on mechanical and visual characteristics of concrete containing recycled metal spring. Struct. Concr.
**2021**, 22, 550–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Park, J.K.; Kim, M.O.; Kim, D.J. Pullout behavior of recycled waste fishing net fibers embedded in cement mortar. Materials
**2020**, 13, 4195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kowsalya, M.; Sindhu Nachiar, S.; Sekar, A.; Ravichandran, P.T. Study on Mechanical and Microstructural Properties of Concrete with Fly Ash Cenosphere as Fine Aggregate—A Sustainable Approach. Buildings
**2022**, 12, 1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ivars, J.; Labanieh, A.R.; Soulat, D. Effect of the Fibre Orientation Distribution on the Mechanical and Preforming Behaviour of Nonwoven Preform Made of Recycled Carbon Fibres. Fibers
**2021**, 9, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Orasutthikul, S.; Unno, D.; Yokota, H. Effectiveness of recycled nylon fiber from waste fishing net with respect to fiber reinforced mortar. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2017**, 146, 594–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Srimahachota, T.; Yokota, H.; Akira, Y. Recycled nylon fiber from waste fishing nets as reinforcement in polymer cement mortar for the repair of corroded RC beams. Materials
**2020**, 13, 4276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Park, J.K.; Kim, D.J.; Kim, M.O. Mechanical behavior of waste fishing net fiber-reinforced cementitious composites subjected to direct tension. J. Build. Eng.
**2021**, 33, 101622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Marinelli, S.; Butturi, M.A.; Rimini, B.; Gamberini, R.; Sellitto, M.A. Estimating the circularity performance of an emerging industrial symbiosis network: The case of recycled plastic fibers in reinforced concrete. Sustainability
**2021**, 13, 10257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ahmed, H.U.; Faraj, R.H.; Hilal, N.; Mohammed, A.A.; Sherwani, A.F.H. Use of recycled fibers in concrete composites: A systematic comprehensive review. Compos. Part B Eng.
**2021**, 215, 108769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ming, Y.; Chen, P.; Li, L.; Gan, G.; Pan, G. A comprehensive review on the utilization of recycled waste fibers in cement-based composites. Materials
**2021**, 14, 3643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, Y.; Gao, L. Influence of tire-recycled steel fibers on strength and flexural behavior of reinforced concrete. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng.
**2020**, 2020, 6363105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Yang, J.; Peng, G.F.; Shui, G.S.; Zhang, G. Mechanical properties and anti-spalling behavior of ultra-high performance concrete with recycled and industrial steel fibers. Materials
**2019**, 12, 783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Neira Medina, A.L.; Garcia, J.A.; Castellanos, N.T. Flexural behavior of environmentally friendly ultra-high-performance concrete with locally available low-cost synthetic fibers. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng.
**2022**, 26, 6281–6304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yang, S.L.; Millard, S.G.; Soutsos, M.N.; Barnett, S.J.; Le, T.T. Influence of aggregate and curing regime on the mechanical properties of ultra-high performance fibre reinforced concrete (UHPFRC). Constr. Build. Mater.
**2009**, 23, 2291–2298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Criado, M.; García-Díaz, I.; Bastidas, J.M.; Alguacil, F.J.; López, F.A.; Monticelli, C. Effect of recycled glass fiber on the corrosion behavior of reinforced mortar. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2014**, 64, 261–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Suchorab, Z.; Franus, M.; Barnat-Hunek, D. Properties of fibrous concrete made with plastic optical fibers from E-Waste. Materials
**2020**, 13, 2414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Farooq, M.A.; Fahad, M.; Ali, B.; El Ouni, M.H.; Elhag, A.B. Influence of nylon fibers recycled from the scrap brushes on the properties of concrete: Valorization of plastic waste in concrete. Case Stud. Constr. Mater.
**2022**, 16, e01089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kumaresan, M.; Nachiar, S.S.; Anandh, S. Implementation of waste recycled fibers in concrete: A review. Mater. Today Proc.
**2022**, 68, 1988–1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yin, S.-R.; Chang, H.-C.; Cheng, K.B. Impact Characteristics of a Badminton Racket with Realistic Finite Element Modeling. Multidiscip. Digit. Publ. Inst. Proc.
**2020**, 49, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhu, Q. Perceiving the affordance of string tension for power strokes in badminton: Expertise allows effective use of all string tensions. J. Sport. Sci.
**2013**, 31, 1187–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fakhrizal, A.N.; Ardiyansyah, S.; Harun, M.N.; Kadir, M.R.A.; Omar, A.H. Finite-element study on effect of string tension toward coefficient of restitution of a badminton racket string-bed. Adv. Mater. Res.
**2013**, 845, 417–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Racquet Network. We Recycle Racquet String. 2018. Available online: https://racquetnetwork.com/we-recycle-racquet-string/ (accessed on 29 January 2023).
- Tennis Express. Inside Look at Wilson’s 2019 US Open Stringing Team. 2019. Available online: https://www.tennisexpress.com/blog/inside-look-at-wilsons-2019-us-open-stringing-team/ (accessed on 29 January 2023).
- Zainal, S.M.I.S.; Hejazi, F.; Aziz, F.N.A.A.; Jaafar, M.S. Effects of hybridized synthetic fibers on the shear properties of cement composites. Materials
**2020**, 13, 5055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nasruddin, F.A.; Harun, M.N.; Syahrom, A.; Kadir, M.R.A.; Omar, A.H.; Öchsner, A. Finite Element Analysis on Badminton Racket Design Parameters; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Ali, M.; Chouw, N. Experimental investigations on coconut-fibre rope tensile strength and pullout from coconut fibre reinforced concrete. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2013**, 41, 681–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - ASTM C1557−14; Standard Test Method for Tensile Strength and Young’s Modulus of Fibers. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015. [CrossRef]
- Kisler-Rao, A. Comparison of nylon, polyester, and olefin fibers using FTIR and melting point analysis. J. Am. Soc. Trace Evid. Exam.
**2015**, 6, 3–20. [Google Scholar] - Madhu, P.; Sanjay, M.R.; Senthamaraikannan, P.; Pradeep, S.; Saravanakumar, S.S.; Yogesha, B. A review on synthesis and characterization of commercially available natural fibers: Part II. J. Nat. Fibers
**2019**, 16, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Obada, D.O.; Kuburi, L.S.; Dauda, M.; Dodoo-Arhin, D.; Iorpenda, M.J.; Hou, Y.; Balogun, M.B.; Iliyasu, I.; Umaru, S.; Bansod, N.D.; et al. Microstructural evolution and hardness properties of coir-coconut husk powder reinforced polymer composites subjected to an acidic environment. Procedia Manuf.
**2019**, 35, 737–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Khan, A.; Vijay, R.; Singaravelu, D.L.; Sanjay, M.R.; Siengchin, S.; Jawaid, M.; Alamry, K.A.; Asiri, A.M. Extraction and characterization of natural fibers from Citrullus lanatus climber. J. Nat. Fibers
**2022**, 19, 621–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fan, C.; Huang, Y.Z.; Lin, J.N.; Li, J. Microplastic constituent identification from admixtures by Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy: The use of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and nylon (NY) as the model constituents. Environ. Technol. Innov.
**2021**, 23, 101798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nahar, S.; Hasan, M. Effect of chemical composition, anatomy and cell wall structure on tensile properties of bamboo fiber. Eng. J.
**2013**, 17, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Rajkumar, G.R.; Krishna, M.; Narasimhamurthy, H.N.; Keshavamurthy, Y.C.; Nataraj, J.R. Investigation of tensile and bending behavior of aluminum based hybrid fiber metal laminates. Procedia Mater. Sci.
**2014**, 5, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Vasanthan, N. Crystallinity determination of nylon 66 by density measurement and fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. J. Chem. Educ.
**2012**, 89, 387–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Vasanthan, N.; Salem, D.R. FTIR spectroscopic characterization of structural changes in polyamide-6 fibers during annealing and drawing. J. Polym. Sci. Part B Polym. Phys.
**2001**, 39, 536–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zarrini, K.; Rahimi, A.A.; Alihosseini, F.; Fashandi, H. Highly efficient dye adsorbent based on polyaniline-coated nylon-6 nanofibers. J. Clean. Prod.
**2017**, 142, 3645–3654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mohammadhosseini, H.; Tahir, M.M.; Sayyed, M.I. Strength and transport properties of concrete composites incorporating waste carpet fibres and palm oil fuel ash. J. Build. Eng.
**2018**, 20, 156–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - El-Newehy, M.H.; Al-Deyab, S.S.; Kenawy, E.R.; Abdel-Megeed, A. Nanospider technology for the production of nylon-6 nanofibers for biomedical applications. J. Nanomater.
**2011**, 2011, 626589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Munawar, S.S.; Umemura, K.; Kawai, S. Characterization of the morphological, physical, and mechanical properties of seven nonwood plant fiber bundles. J. Wood Sci.
**2007**, 53, 108–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mazzoli, A.; Monosi, S.; Plescia, E.S. Evaluation of the early-age-shrinkage of Fiber Reinforced Concrete (FRC) using image analysis methods. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2015**, 101, 596–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cai, Z.; Chattopadhyay, N.; Liu, W.J.; Chan, C.; Pignol, J.P.; Reilly, R.M. Optimized digital counting colonies of clonogenic assays using ImageJ software and customized macros: Comparison with manual counting. Int. J. Radiat. Biol.
**2011**, 87, 1135–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sanusi, S.H.; Azman, A.N. Performance Analysis of Different Polymer Core for Badminton String Application. Res. Prog. Mech. Manuf. Eng.
**2021**, 2, 152–158. [Google Scholar] - Mouradi, H.; El Barkany, A.; El Biyaali, A. Steel wire ropes failure analysis: Experimental study. Eng. Fail. Anal.
**2018**, 91, 234–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bertelsen, I.M.G.; Ottosen, L.M. Engineering properties of fibres from waste fishing nets. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Materials, Systems and Structures in Civil Engineering: Conference Workshop on Cold Region Engineering, Lyngby, Denmark, 22–24 August 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, F.; Shao, J. Modified Weibull distribution for analyzing the tensile strength of bamboo fibers. Polymers
**2014**, 6, 3005–3018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Meng, C.; Li, W.; Cai, L.; Shi, X.; Jiang, C. Experimental research on durability of high-performance synthetic fibers reinforced concrete: Resistance to sulfate attack and freezing-thawing. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2020**, 262, 120055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fidelis, M.E.A.; Pereira, T.V.C.; Gomes, O.D.F.M.; de Andrade Silva, F.; Toledo Filho, R.D. The effect of fiber morphology on the tensile strength of natural fibers. J. Mater. Res. Technol.
**2013**, 2, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Spadea, S.; Farina, I.; Carrafiello, A.; Fraternali, F. Recycled nylon fibers as cement mortar reinforcement. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2015**, 80, 200–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Balea, A.; Fuente, E.; Monte, M.C.; Blanco, A.; Negro, C. Recycled fibers for sustainable hybrid fiber cement based material: A review. Materials
**2021**, 14, 2408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tran, N.P.; Gunasekara, C.; Law, D.W.; Houshyar, S.; Setunge, S.; Cwirzen, A. Comprehensive review on sustainable fiber reinforced concrete incorporating recycled textile waste. J. Sustain. Cem.-Based Mater.
**2022**, 11, 41–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pakravan, H.R.; Jeddi, A.A.A.; Jamshidi, M.; Memarian, F.; Saghafi, A.M. Properties of recycled carpet fiber reinforced concrete. In Use of Recycled Plastics in Eco-Efficient Concrete; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2019; pp. 411–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 7.**WBSF observed in SEM. (

**a**) Layers of WBSF; (

**b**) severe damage (elasticity outer and outer layer); (

**c**) surface damage (Elasticity outer).

**Figure 9.**SEM image showing (

**a**) the borderline and voids of new fibers; (

**b**) the borderline and voids of old fibers.

**Figure 10.**(

**a**) Stress–strain curve for one strand. (

**b**) Energy absorption of the fiber. (

**c**) Stress–strain curve for three strands. (

**d**) Stress–strain curve for five strands.

**Figure 12.**Stress–strain graph of varying gauge lengths: (

**a**) new fibers with a 100 mm gauge length, (

**b**) old fibers with a 100 mm gauge length, (

**c**) new fibers with a 80 mm gauge length, (

**d**) old fibers with a 80 mm gauge length, (

**e**) new fibers with a 60 mm gauge length, and (

**f**) old fibers with a 60 mm gauge length.

Band Position/cm^{−1} | Assignments |
---|---|

3291 | N-H stretch |

2920 | Asymmetric CH_{2} stretch |

2851 | Symmetric CH_{2} stretch |

1635 | C=O stretch |

1545 | N-H stretch |

1464 | CH_{2} scissors |

1262 | CH_{2} twist-wagging |

720 | N-H deformation |

Elements | Net Counts | Weight % | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Core Fiber | Outer Layer | Elasticity Outer | Core Fiber | Outer Layer | Elasticity Outer | |

Carbon (C) | 19,657 | 5938 | 17,766 | 44.39 | 88.05 | 51.53 |

Nitrogen (N) | 1259 | - | 793 | 25.80 | - | 25.05 |

Oxygen (O) | 2144 | 83 | 1154 | 29.48 | 8.63 | 22.74 |

Sodium (Na) | 105 | - | - | 0.32 | - | - |

Silica (Si) | - | 271 | - | - | 3.32 | - |

Aluminum (Al) | - | - | 264 | - | - | 0.68 |

Layers | O_{1},C_{1},E_{1} | O_{2},C_{2},E_{2} | O_{3},C_{3},E_{3} | O_{4},C_{4},E_{4} | O_{5},C_{5},E_{5} | O_{6},C_{6},E_{6} | O_{7},C_{7},E_{7} | O_{8},C_{8},E_{8} | O_{9},C_{9},E_{9} | Mean | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Outer Layer (ϕ) µm | 53.843 | 50.500 | 51.272 | 53.171 | 52.016 | 53.334 | 51.816 | 51.150 | 53.408 | 52.278 | 1.190 |

Core Fiber (ϕ) µm | 25.793 | 26.479 | 25.783 | 25.395 | 27.096 | 25.496 | 26.268 | 24.262 | 25.024 | 25.732 | 0.832 |

Elasticity Outer (t) µm | 25.281 | 28.874 | 20.456 | 13.351 | 35.032 | 17.682 | 21.910 | 25.548 | 9.650 | 21.976 | 7.816 |

Fiber Sample | Mean Diameter (μm) | Standard Deviation of Diameter (μm) | Overall Cross-Sectional Area of the Fiber (μm^{2}) | Area of Voids (μm^{2}) | Net Cross-Sectional Area of the Fiber (μm^{2}) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

New Fiber (N) | 799.1 | 9.8 | 509,470.3 | 4684.0 | 504,786.3 |

Old Fiber (O) | 776.3 | 25.3 | 500,446.0 | 2321.0 | 498,125.0 |

No of Fibers Failed | Three-Strand Fibers | Five-Strand Fibers | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

New Fibers (NF3) | Old Fibers (OF3) | New Fibers (NF5) | Old Fibers (OF5) | |||||||||||||||||

0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |

F_{u} | F_{ur} | F_{u} | F_{ur} | F_{u} | F_{ur} | F_{u} | F_{ur} | |||||||||||||

Ultimate Force After Failure (in N) | 788.42 | 510.71 | 249.14 | 0 | 625.77 | 422.49 | 222.40 | 0 | 1073.77 | 849.14 | 682.41 | 614.26 | 410.96 | 0 | 882.039 | 637.63 | 525.68 | 362.00 | 318.51 | 0 |

Residual Force loss Ratio (in %) | 0 | 35.22 | 68.40 | 100 | 0 | 32.48 | 64.45 | 100 | 0 | 20.9 | 36.44 | 42.79 | 61.72 | 100 | 0 | 27.70 | 40.40 | 58.95 | 63.88 | 100 |

% Difference | 35.22 | 33.18 | 31.60 | - | 32.48 | 31.97 | 35.55 | - | 20.90 | 15.54 | 6.35 | 18.93 | 38.28 | - | 27.70 | 12.17 | 18.55 | 4.93 | 36.12 | - |

Parameters | New Fiber | Old Fiber | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

100 mm | 80 mm | 60 mm | 100 mm | 80 mm | 60 mm | |

Equation of the slope | y = 6.3462x − 41.517 | y = 5.2776x − 34.949 | y = 7.3154x − 48.858 | y = 7.2446x − 45.979 | y = 9.1796x − 59.112 | y = 8.5796x − 55.681 |

R^{2} value | 0.88 | 0.93 | 0.79 | 0.89 | 0.97 | 0.94 |

Weibull modulus (m) | 6.34 | 5.27 | 7.31 | 7.24 | 9.17 | 8.58 |

Weibull reference strength (σₒ) | 693.68 | 751.55 | 795.35 | 570.58 | 626.09 | 658.47 |

Average tensile strength (σ_{Avg}) of the fiber from tests conducted for this study | 648.53 | 695.14 | 749.03 | 537.40 | 596.65 | 625.55 |

Difference in % | 6.96 | 8.11 | 6.18 | 6.17 | 4.93 | 5.26 |

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |

© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

M, K.; Nachiar, S.S.; Sekar, A.
Engineering Properties of Waste Badminton String Fiber. *Fibers* **2023**, *11*, 25.
https://doi.org/10.3390/fib11030025

**AMA Style**

M K, Nachiar SS, Sekar A.
Engineering Properties of Waste Badminton String Fiber. *Fibers*. 2023; 11(3):25.
https://doi.org/10.3390/fib11030025

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

M, Kumaresan, S Sindhu Nachiar, and Anandh Sekar.
2023. "Engineering Properties of Waste Badminton String Fiber" *Fibers* 11, no. 3: 25.
https://doi.org/10.3390/fib11030025