Views: 0 Author: Site Editor Publish Time: 2026-02-02 Origin: Site
In the fiberglass and FRP industry, 1708 biaxial fiberglass and woven roving fiberglass are frequently compared.
Both are widely used reinforcement fabrics, yet they are designed for fundamentally different structural purposes.
For many engineers, fabricators, and purchasing professionals, the question is not what these materials are, but which one is more suitable for a specific application.
This article provides a comprehensive, engineering-oriented comparison of 1708 vs woven roving, covering structure, fiber orientation, mechanical behavior, resin consumption, processing compatibility, and real-world applications.
Woven roving is produced by weaving coarse fiberglass rovings in a 0°/90° pattern.
The interlacing process introduces fiber crimp, which reduces the efficiency of load transfer under certain stress conditions.
While woven roving offers good dimensional stability and ease of handling, its structure is inherently less optimized for complex, multi-directional loads.
The most critical difference between 1708 vs woven roving lies in fiber orientation, which directly determines how loads are carried in a laminate.
Optimized for:
Shear loads
Torsional loads
Off-axis stresses
Fatigue resistance in dynamic structures
Optimized for:
Tensile loads
Bending loads
Thickness build-up
In real-world FRP structures—such as boat hulls, wind energy components, and industrial tanks—loads are rarely applied purely in the 0° or 90° direction.
This is why biaxial fabrics like 1708 are increasingly favored in structural laminate design.
Rather than focusing on individual strength values, it is more useful to compare performance trends.
Property | 1708 Fiberglass | Woven Roving |
Tensile strength | Good | Good |
Shear strength | Excellent | Moderate |
Torsional resistance | Excellent | Low–Moderate |
Fatigue performance | High | Medium |
Structural efficiency | High | Lower |
Risk of delamination | Low | Higher |
In many cases, fewer layers of 1708 can achieve equivalent or superior performance compared to multiple layers of woven roving.
Laminate integrity is a critical factor in long-term durability.
Stitched layers improve interlaminar bonding
Reduced resin-rich zones
Lower risk of crack propagation
Better damage tolerance
Layer-to-layer bonding relies heavily on resin
Higher likelihood of delamination under cyclic loads
Less forgiving in repair or reinforcement applications
This is one reason why 1708 is commonly used in structural repairs and retrofits, even when woven roving was used in the original construction.
A common misconception is that woven roving is cheaper simply because its fabric price is lower.
In practice, fabric cost does not equal laminate cost.
1708 fiberglass: Medium resin uptake, optimized fiber-to-resin ratio
Woven roving: High resin uptake due to large inter-fiber gaps
Excess resin increases:
Laminate weight
Material cost
Cure shrinkage
Risk of voids and defects
In weight-sensitive or resin-intensive applications, 1708 often results in a lower total laminate cost, despite a higher initial fabric price.
Vacuum infusion
RTM and RTM-Light
VARTM
Hand lay-up with structural requirements
Important note:
When using epoxy resin, the chopped strand mat in 1708 must be powder-bound, not emulsion-bound.
One of the most common selection mistakes is equating thickness with strength.
Adding more layers of woven roving:
Increases thickness and weight
Does not significantly improve shear or torsional performance
Can introduce internal stresses and defects
1708, by contrast, provides higher structural efficiency per unit thickness, allowing engineers to design lighter, stronger laminates.
1708: Hulls, decks, stringers, bulkheads
Woven roving: Non-structural panels, secondary components
1708: Structural FRP parts, reinforcement layers
Woven roving: Limited use in non-critical components
1708: Tanks, pipes, load-bearing structures
Woven roving: Covers, enclosures, thickness build-up layers
1708 is generally preferred due to better load transfer and bonding.
In many modern composite designs, yes.
1708 has largely replaced woven roving in:
Structural marine laminates
Wind energy applications
High-performance industrial FRP structures
However, woven roving remains appropriate when:
Loads are low
Cost is the primary driver
The design is thickness-based rather than performance-based
Assuming materials are interchangeable
Fiber orientation matters.
Choosing based on fabric price alone
Resin and weight costs are often higher with woven roving.
Using woven roving in vacuum processes
Leads to poor laminate quality.
Overbuilding instead of redesigning
Thickness does not compensate for inefficient load paths.
At Jlon Composite, we supply both 1708 biaxial fiberglass and woven roving fiberglass in a wide range of specifications.
More importantly, we help customers:
Select the right fabric based on load requirements
Optimize laminate structure and processing method
Balance performance and cost
Customize fiberglass solutions for marine, wind energy, and industrial FRP applications
Our approach is application-driven, not product-driven.
Is 1708 stronger than woven roving?
In applications involving shear and torsion, yes.
Can woven roving be used in vacuum infusion?
Generally not recommended.
Is 1708 more expensive?
Fabric price is higher, but total laminate cost is often lower.
The choice between 1708 vs woven roving is not about which material is “better,” but which is more appropriate for a given application.
Understanding fiber orientation, load behavior, processing compatibility, and total laminate cost allows engineers and fabricators to make informed decisions—and avoid costly design compromises.
For technical guidance or customized fiberglass solutions, contact Jlon Composite.
