- Email: [email protected]
Hybrid Composites Based On Kenaf, Jute, Fiberglass Woven Fabrics: Tensile And Impact Properties
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 11198–11207
www.materialstoday.com/proceedings
ICMMM - 2017
Hybrid Composites Based On Kenaf, Jute, Fiberglass Woven Fabrics: Tensile And Impact Properties A. F. M. Nora,b,*, M. T. H. Sultana,b, A. Hamdana,b, A. M. R. Azmia,b, K. Jayakrisnac a
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia b Aerospace Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC), Level 7, Tower Block, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia c School of Mechanical Engineering, VIT University, Vellore - 632 014, Tamil Nadu, India
Abstract Recently, environment and sustainability issues have arisen which resulting in remarkable achievements for green technology in the field of material production. Pertaining to this research, food tray table that are used in in-flight galley service is currently facing an environmental issue in regard of the use of non-degradable resources as the main element in food tray table production. Hence, this research is attempting an effort to propose a newly developed material, which has the element of natural fiber in hybrid composites consist of jute (J), kenaf (K) and fiberglass (FG) for food tray table with less sustainability issues. This paper presents the results of an experimental study on the mechanical properties consist of tensile and low-velocity impact properties on hybrid composites. The aim of this research is to investigate the dynamic response of the hybrid composites under low velocity impact energy, as well as to analyze the experimental data for damage characterization from the tensile and impact testing. Hybrid composites with four different configurations (FG-K-J-K-FG, FG-K-K-K-FG, FG-J-J-J-FG, FG-J-K-J-FG) is fabricating for 5 layers in the first stage, subject to the tensile testing. Meanwhile in the second stage, the best two configurations out of the four are subjecting to low-velocity impact with circular steel impactor at various energy levels from 10J to 40J. The results show that the FG-J-J-J-FG and FG-J-K-J-FG configurations of the specimens possess 90% better mechanical properties compared to FG-K-J-K-FG and FG-K-K-K-FG configurations in hybrid composites. Meanwhile, FG-J-J-J-FG is showing the best configuration for the newly develop material in impact test. In conclusion, these hybrid composites are viable to extend into a newly develop material for further investigation. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Selection and/or Peer-review under responsibility of International Conference on Materials Manufacturing and Modelling (ICMMM - 2017).
Keywords: hybrid composites; tensile; low velocity impact
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +6012-4847260; fax: +603-86567125. E-mail address: [email protected] 2214-7853 © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Selection and/or Peer-review under responsibility of International Conference on Materials Manufacturing and Modelling (ICMMM - 2017).
Nor et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 11198–11207
11199
1. Introduction The utilization of composite materials has become the new alternative as compared to the traditional metals for some aircraft machine parts mostly due to their quality increment, durability, resistance from corrosion and fatigue, and also tolerance towards any kind of damages. Recently, composites materials are applied massively in advanced structures [1]. In addition, sustainability and environmental issues had been arising significantly in the matter of time in order toward less pollution and greener Earth. Therefore, more extensive researches had been conducted to promote the efficient and advanced biodegradable composite materials to replace existing non-biodegradable synthetic composites materials at a lower rate and lower cost [2]. Furthermore, the current researches show that it is possible for natural fiber as reinforcement materials in composite due to its performance compare to the glass fiber reinforced composite (GFRC) and resulting in an arisen the new era of biocomposites[3]. The utilization of lower cost composite structures is now used as a part of construction, marine, and even wind energy businesses. There are currently numerous uses of composites in the space and aircraft industry. For example, the Airbus A350 is now made of half composites that are still in production [4]. By using composite material as the body of aircraft construction, it decreases the cost of maintenance, requirement for weakness-related investigations, and lessen fuel consumption [5] [6]. Besides that, researchers are currently exploring the application of hybrid composites. Hybrid composites can be defined as two or more fiber are consolidated in a single matrix, where the fibers can be from natural fibers, artificial fibers and with a mix of both natural and artificial fibers [7]. The improvement of lightweight and resistant to high temperature composite materials will lessen fuel usage, enhance proficiency and decrease coordinate working expenses of airplanes. Fiberglass is the most common composite material, which consists of glass fibers embedded in a resin matrix. In spite the fact that the strength quality is lower than carbon fiber, the material is far less brittle, and the raw materials for production is less costly. Its bulk strength and weight properties are comparable with metals and be easily shaped using molding processes. Fiberglass was initially used in the aircraft as a part of the Boeing 707 passenger jet in the 1950s, where two percent of composite was used in the structure. Every era of new aircraft worked by Boeing had an expanded rate of composite material usage; the highest percentage of composite use in the next-to-be-released 787 Dreamliner [8]. Unlike with another composites, classification of fiberglass can be determined by letter designation for each type. The types of fiberglass according to letter designation with their property or characteristic respectively can be defined as shown in the Table 1. Table 1: Types of fiberglass [9]. Letter designation
Characteristic
E, electrical
Low electrical conductivity
A, alkali
High alkali or soda lime glass
C, chemical
High chemical durability
D, dielectric
Low dielectric constant
R, reinforcement
High stiffness
S, strength
High strength
11200
Nor et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 11198–11207
E-glass is the most widely recognized type of glass fiber, which is alumino-borosilicate glass with less than 1% w/w alkali oxides, basically used for glass-strengthened plastics. Different sorts of glass used are A-glass (Alkalilime glass with almost none boron oxide), E-CR-glass (Electrical/Chemical Resistance; alumino-lime silicate with under 1% w/w soluble base oxides, with high corrosive resistance), C-glass (antacid lime glass with high boron oxide content, used for glass staple strands and protection), D-glass (borosilicate glass, named for its low Dielectric steady), R-glass (alumino silicate glass without MgO and CaO with high mechanical prerequisites as Reinforcement), and S-glass (alumino silicate glass without CaO however with high MgO content with high tensile strength). Table 2 shows the overall view of the advantages and disadvantages of fiberglass. Table 2: Advantages and disadvantages of fiberglass [10] Advantages
Disadvantages
High strength
High cost
High resistance to corrosion
Easy to stain
Waterproof and non-conductive
Good frequency absorber
Weaken easily when exposed to cold temperature
Cost effectiveness maintenance
Hazardous to handle in process manufacture
in
term
of
The interest of researchers exploring the science in natural fibers and industrial application are increased. Their mechanical properties gave competiveness to the other material in term of production [11]. They are cheap, renewable, totally or partially recyclable and biodegradable [12]. Natural fibers can be divided into plant fiber, animal sources and mineral sources. Kenaf, jute, bamboo, flax, coir, and cotton are example of plant fiber. Meanwhile, the examples of fiber from animal sources are silk and wool [13]. They can be a suitable green alternative to synthetic, glass, and carbon fibers used for composites field due to their rapid renewability, long term availability, low density and price as well as pleasing mechanical properties. Their applications can be seen in automobiles, aerospace, construction industries, military applications, consumer products and packaging [14]. Natural plant fibers can be divided into several main categories as shown in the Figure 1. Wool/hair
Lamb’s wool, goat hair, horsehair
Silk
Tussah silk, mulberry silk
Seed
Cotton, kapok, milkweed
Fruit
Coir
Bast
Flax, jute, kenaf
Leaf
Pineapple, abaca, sisal
Stalk
Wheat, maize, barley
Cane, grass & reed fibers
Bamboo, bagasse, esparto
Animal
Natural fibers
Vegetable
Mineral fibers
Asbestos, brucite, wollastonite
Figure 1: Classification of natural fibers [15].
Nor et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 11198–11207
11201
In the olden days, natural fibers have been developed and utilized thoroughly for non-structural applications and have additionally been utilized for applications in the housing department, usually as rooftop material and house insulation. A huge variety is found in the properties of natural fibers [16]. In addition, the properties are also influenced by the location of where the fibers are grown, the conditions in which the fibers are developed, the part of the plant they are harvested from, the period of growing, and any retting or removing forms [17]. Table 3 shows the overall view of the pros and cons of natural fiber. Table 3: Advantages and disadvantages of natural fibers [12]. Advantages
Disadvantages
Renewable resources
Lower strength (especially impact strength)
Lightweight
Low cost
Poor moisture resistance that resulting swelling of the fibers
High specific strength
Restricted maximum processing temperature
Low energy required during production
Lower durability
Disposal by composting
Poor fire resistance
Good thermal insulation
Poor fiber or matrix adhesion
Jute fibers and kenaf fibers had been acknowledged can be reinforced into the composites throughout plenty of researches. Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) is an herbaceous plant that grows annually and can be grown under various weather conditions. Kenaf fiber is picked because of its high specific mechanical properties, possesses fairly low density, minimal cost and effortlessly recycled like any other natural fibers [18]. Besides that, kenaf plant can be easily obtained from Bangladesh, USA, South Africa, India, Thailand and India. Currently, the productions of kenaf fibers are increasing throughout the world. Jute fiber is retrieved from herbaceous yearly plants, white Corchorus capsularis that is originated from Asia and Corchorus olitorius, from Africa. It can be planted in river flats, which most food crops are unavailable to plant there and pesticides or fertilizers are not needed during the growth of jute; so, jute is can be defined as green agroproduct [19]. The jute fiber owns moderate high specific strength, stiffness and modulus, which can leads to enhance composites. Wanbua et al. stated that in their research by using traditional glass fiber reinforced by jute fibers that the composite become lower specifies gravity and higher specific modulus (40GPa) compared to the fiberglass. However, the Young’s modulus and the tensile strength of the composites in their research are lower than those glass fiber [20]. That is why jute and kenaf are chosen in this research. Jute and kenaf fiber are found in the fabrication of new composites because of its low cost of production and renewable nature. Currently, the material is planned to be used as the tertiary component in aircraft galley service, such as food tray table until it can be further tested for secondary and primary components. Many passenger seats in aircraft are equipped with foldable tray tables. The food tray tables can be used for eating, working, or for supporting small items during transport. The tray table's in-flight service is used amid transport and stowed for departure, landing, and different unsafe flight conditions. As indicated by Egret Aviation Co., Ltd. Organization in China, which holds the manufacturing of food tray table, their item is made of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene (ABS) consolidated with Poly-Vinyl Chloride (PVC) with measurement of 378mm x 270mm x 20mm. Planning and assembling of airship service equipment is the main business of their company. Regarding to the food tray from the previous company, it is well known that the material used for manufacturing is a combination of ABS and PVC. ABS polymers are opaque thermoplastic resins formed by the polymerization of acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene monomers. A diverse combination of properties makes them classified in plastics family. Meanwhile, PVC is a thermoplastic synthetic material made by polymerizing vinyl chloride. The properties rely upon its additional plasticizer.
11202
Nor et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 11198–11207
The main problem is both of the common materials in the manufacturing of the food tray table are not biodegradable and have a sustainability issues. Therefore, this project proposes a newly develop hybrid composite without using any of these materials in production of the food tray table and replace with epoxy resin as the matrix. Epoxy resin is chosen as the matrix because does not required high temperature and energy for the production compared to the production of ABS and PVC. In conclusion, the recently developed hybrid composite is predicted to have a less maintainability issues as compared to the existing one. 2. Experiment Procedure The test material is fabricated with four different configurations of hybrid reinforcement composites consisted of fiberglass (FG), jute fiber (J) and kenaf fiber (K) in the form of woven fiber. Each specimen is consisted of five layers following configuration with thickness of specimen before and after compression as shown in the Table 4. Table 4: Configurations of 5 layers Thickness (mm)
Specimen (Configuration)
Before compression
After compression
SP1 (FG-K-J-K-FG)
4.15
3.15
SP2 (FG-K-K-K-FG)
5.05
4.00
SP3 (FG-J-J-J-FG)
2.35
1.60
SP4 (FG-J-K-J-FG)
3.25
2.10
Each type of materials is cut into 300mm x 300mm square. The specimens are fabricated using hand lay up technique. The process of preparing the compound is based on a 2:1 ratio; that is, two portions of epoxy to one portion of hardener. The epoxy resin and hardener used are types Zeepoxy HL002TA and Zeepoxy HL002TB. Then, the specimen is covered with another metal plate and compressed using a compression machine to squeeze out excess epoxy. The specimen was then cured in compressed condition for 48 hours. In order to complete the curing process, the specimens are post-cured in an oven at 80°C for two hours. Then, the specimens are cooled down to room temperature. All four configurations of the specimens were cut using vertical saw machine following ASTM D-3039 standard, which is 250mm x 25mm for the tensile test. Mechanical properties of specimens are determined through tensile tests. Then the results are compared and analyzed. After that, the best two configurations are chosen to observe the difference damage progression with low velocity impact test. An impact test is a test for determining the material’s ability to resist high-rate loading and the energy absorbed in fracturing a test piece at certain amount of velocity. . Before the impact test is carried out, the new specimens from the best two configurations are fabricated with different numbers of layer in order to achieve the thickness required for the testing. The specimens for impact test were cut according to Boeing Standard Specifications, BSS 7260, which is 150mm x 100mm. After the thickness of the specimen is measured and fulfill the requirement, the specimens are tested in low velocity impact test by using Dropweight Tester Machine. 2.1. Mechanical testing Tensile tests are performed in accordance to ASTM D-3039 standards and repeat it five times for accurate result. The displacement will be measured with vernier calipers. The test was carried out using Instron 3366 with a capacity of 10kN, maximum speed of 1000mm/min and vertical test space of 1193mm. The speed used for all configurations are 1mm/min. The specimens were marked and clamped at 50mm on the top and bottom end part of the specimen. The elastic modulus, failure strain and tensile strength will be calculated from the stress-strain result.
Nor et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 11198–11207
11203
2.2. Impact testing The machine that had been used for the impact test was Imatek, IM10 Drop Weight Impact Tester which gives out higher accuracy, more precise results, the reliability is more trusted and strong security standards. IM10 Drop Machine has an exceedingly versatile range of drop weight impact testers for performing an extensive variety of medium energy tests on materials, materials and the finished results of different geometry. This machine is the research grade instrumentation and has an exceptionally rigid construction for higher precision test results. Guided mass framework was used to guarantee the impact geometry was accurate throughout the whole process. In this step, by using formula of energy, E = mgh Where,
(1)
m = mass g = gravity h = height E = energy
The value of mass is the mass of drop impactor, gravitational is constant with 9.81 ms-2 and energy is represent by impact energy value. In order to verify the results of tensile, impact test had been done with added layers from five layers to nine layers in order to fulfill the required thickness for the test. Beforehand the real testing will be conducted; preliminary test had been done to validate the data [21]. The reason that preliminary test had been conducted as the pilot test to measure the highest energy level that material can withstand the impact energy and avoid full penetration from occur. This process is done to observe the damage progression to the specimens. The results from the preliminary test show that the highest energy for both configurations is 40 Joules. Then, increment of 10 Joules from zero until 40 Joules is chosen in order to fulfill the observation of damage progression. Therefore, the heights or the distances of the drop mass for each specimen were calculated beforehand to achieve the energy input. The height of the impactor to the specimen is shown in Table 5 correspond to the impact energy respectively. Table 5: Height of the impactor according to the impact energy Energy (J) 10 20 30 40
Height (m) 0.199 0.399 0.599 0.799
3. Results and discussion 3.1. Tensile test
Specimen
Tensile Stress (MPa)
Table 6: Data from tensile test Tensile Strain (%) Modulus (GPa)
Maximum Load (N)
SP1
52.99
2.55
4.54
4172.64
SP2
62.44
2.82
4.09
6243.93
SP3
124.05
2.49
7.79
4961.84
SP4
73.63
2.38
5.60
3865.69
11204
Nor et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 11198–11207
Table 6 shows the result of tensile test. High value in Young’s Modulus is also the main factors in selecting SP3 composite to be strongest materials, followed by SP4 composite with average Young Modulus of 5.60GPa and tensile stress of 73.63MPa. Young’s Modulus value indicates that the material has a high level of stiffness. The stiffness of SP3 and SP4 composites need higher loads to be elastically deformed as compared to SP1 and SP2 composites. SP2 composites are the weakest materials out of all four configurations with lowest value in Young’s Modulus. However, this composite has the highest average values of maximum load. This means that configuration needs more load in order to make the composite undergo deformation. Besides, configuration plays significant factor for determining the mechanical properties of the composite. High strength fiber as outer layer in the sequence of composite improves the mechanical properties [22]. High strength and modulus woven jute fiber at the outer layer in third and fourth configurations withstand the applied load and distribute the loads uniformly. The third configuration produced the highest tensile value due to low cross sectional area. This is because the third specimen was the thinnest specimen compared to the other three specimens. Although the thickness was vary for each specimen but the thickness, length and width were put in consideration by putting the value of each parameters into the tensile testing machine. Then, it was calculated automatically to obtain the tensile strength. The comparison of tensile stress for each configuration can be seen in Figure 2 as below. The data shows that the third configuration has the highest tensile stress due to the fact that this configuration has the lowest cross sectional area. The best two configurations that are third and fourth configurations are chosen to carry on impact testing as further comparison to validate the tensile results.
Tensile stress (Mpa)
120
SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4
100 80 60 40 20 0 0
1 2 Tensile strain (%)
3
Figure 2: Tensile stress against tensile strain curve
3.2. Impact test The area under the graph shows the results of the energy absorption. The graph of force, F(kN) against displacement, s(mm) represents the energy absorbed during the impact test. Once the mass impacted the specimen, the specimen absorbed some energy or weight impact to show it has the capability to withstand to any impact with some power impact. The graph in Figure 3 represents the relationship between energy absorption and impact energy. From the graph, we can see that third configuration has higher energy absorption at higher impact energy compared to fourth configuration. When the impact increases, the absorbed energy also increases respectively.
Energy Absorbed (J)
Nor et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 11198–11207
11205
40 SP3
30
SP4
20 10 0 0
20 Impact energy (J)
40
Figure 3: Energy absorbed-impact energy curve
When the thickness of the material was compared, the third configuration has higher thickness compared to the fourth configuration. As the laminate thickness increases, the resistance offered by the laminates in delaminations increases and absorbs more energy in delaminations mode [23]. Hence, the third configuration’s energy absorption should be higher compared to the fourth configuration. Then, the result fulfils the criteria needed. Peak force (kN)
6 4 SP3
2
SP4 0 0
20 40 Impact energy (J)
60
Figure 4: Peak impact force-impact energy curve
Figure 4 shows that the average peak impact force is found to follow the same increasing trend with respect to impact energy. The impact forces generated for impacts onto SP4 are significantly larger than SP3 due to its high stiffness. This shows that SP4 is stiffer than SP3. It can be stated that the stiffer the projectile-to-target interactions are resulted from the peak impact forces. The study verified that different configuration with same number of layers give different mechanical properties. The results from the flexural test shows it can be claimed that the best two configurations out of four are third (SP3) and fourth (SP4) configuration. The material properties will affect the stiffness of the structure and the contact stiffness will have a significant effect on the dynamic response of the structure. In relation to this research, high thickness reduces the damage of the structures. The fourth configuration (SP4) shows excellent results compared to the third configuration is differing from the results from tensile. For the tensile test, the results show the third configuration (SP3) has better mechanical properties compared to the fourth configuration (SP4). When the layers of the specimen were increased in the impact test, the mechanical properties have changed and the results are contrasted. In impact test, the fourth configuration (SP4) has high strength, good impact resistance and a small damage area. The fourth configuration (SP4) shows that it needs little work to resist and sustain the impact force, compared to the third configuration (SP3). It can be seen at data energy absorbed where the third configuration (SP3) has higher absorption of impact to restore the pressure on specimen. Therefore, the fourth configuration (SP4) has higher peak load, lower energy absorption, slower damage progression and less severe failure mode compared to the third configuration (SP3) due to the difference in thickness and the mechanical properties for both configurations.
11206
Nor et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 11198–11207
4. Conclusion In this study, the primary objective to determine the tensile properties and also the impact testing for hybrid composite consist of woven fiberglass, woven kenaf and woven jute with different configuration has been achieved. The study verified that different configuration with same number of layers give different mechanical properties. This research may help to widespread the use of hybrid composite in the future. Data from the tensile test shows that the third configuration has the highest tensile stress value, which is 124.05MPa, compared to the other configurations. The results from the tensile test shows it can be claimed that the best two configurations out of four are third (SP3) and fourth (SP4) configuration. From the results obtained form the impact test, the energy absorbed and the peak impact force increase linearly with the impact energy for both configurations. Comparing both configurations at the same impact energy, third configuration has a lower peak force compared to fourth configuration. Therefore, fourth configuration is more impact resistant. Acknowledgements This work is supported by UPM under GP-IPM grant, 9490602. References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
M. T. H. Sultan et al., “On impact damage detection and quantification for CFRP laminates using structural response data only,” Mech. Syst. Signal Process., vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 3135–3152, 2011. A. Chauhan and P. Chauhan, “Natural Fibers and Biopolymer,” J Chem Eng Process Technol, vol. 6, 2013. M. R. Sanjay, G. R. Arpitha, and B. Yogesha, “Study on Mechanical Properties of Natural - Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer Hybrid Composites: A Review,” Mater. Today Proc., vol. 2, no. 4–5, pp. 2959–2967, 2015. T. Sathishkumar, S. Satheeshkumar, and J. Naveen, “Glass fiber-reinforced polymer composites - a review,” J. Reinf. Plast. Compos., vol. 33, no. 13, pp. 1258–1275, 2014. N. Razali, M. T. H. Sultan, F. Mustapha, N. Yidris, and M. R. Ishak, “Impact Damage on Composite Structures – A Review,” Int. J. Eng. Sci., pp. 2319–1813, 2014. A. Hamdan, F. Mustapha, K. A. Ahmad, A. S. Mohd Rafie, M. R. Ishak, and A. E. Ismail, “The Effect of Customized Woven and Stacked Layer Orientation on Tensile and Flexural Properties of Woven Kenaf Fibre Reinforced Epoxy Composites,” Int. J. Polym. Sci., vol. 2016, 2016. S. Nunna, P. R. Chandra, S. Shrivastava, and a. Jalan, “A review on mechanical behavior of natural fiber based hybrid composites,” J. Reinf. Plast. Compos., vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 759–769, 2012. M. Mrazova, “Advanced composite materials of the future in aerospace industry,” Incas Bull., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 139–150, 2013. A. McIlhagger, E. Archer, and R. McIlhagger, “Manufacturing Processes for Composite Materials and Components for Aerospace Applications,” in Polymer Composites in the Aerospace Industry, 2015, pp. 53–75. N. P. Cheremisinoff and P. N. Cheremisinoff, “Fiberglass Reinforced Plastics,” Fiberglass Reinforced Plastics. pp. 39–65, 1995. J. Holbery and D. Houston, “Natural-fiber-reinforced polymer composites in automotive applications,” JOM, vol. 58, no. 11. pp. 80– 86, 2006. M. Jawaid and H. P. S. Abdul Khalil, “Cellulosic/synthetic fibre reinforced polymer hybrid composites: A review,” Carbohydrate Polymers, vol. 86, no. 1. pp. 1–18, 2011. S. Mukhopadhyay and R. Fangueiro, “Physical Modification of Natural Fibers and Thermoplastic Films for Composites -- A Review,” J. Thermoplast. Compos. Mater., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 135–162, 2009. D. Chandramohan and Marimuthu, “A review on natural fibers,” Int. J. Res. Rev. Appl. Sci., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 194–206, 2011. H. M. Akil, M. F. Omar, A. A. M. Mazuki, S. Safiee, Z. A. M. Ishak, and A. Abu Bakar, “Kenaf fiber reinforced composites: A review,” Materials and Design, vol. 32, no. 8–9. pp. 4107–4121, 2011. S. . Joshi, L. . Drzal, A. . Mohanty, and S. Arora, “Are natural fiber composites environmentally superior to glass fiber reinforced composites?,” Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 371–376, 2004. A. Ticoalu, T. Aravinthan, and F. Cardona, “A review of current development in natural fiber composites for structural and infrastructure applications,” South. Reg. Eng. Conf., no. November, pp. 1–5, 2010. A. K. Mohanty, M. Misra, and G. Hinrichsen, “Biofibres, biodegradable polymers and biocomposites: An overview,” Macromolecular Materials and Engineering, vol. 276–277. pp. 1–24, 2000. D. Liu, G. Han, J. Huang, and Y. Zhang, “Composition and structure study of natural Nelumbo nucifera fiber,” Carbohydr. Polym., vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 39–43, 2009. P. Wambua, J. Ivens, and I. Verpoest, “Natural fibres: Can they replace glass in fibre reinforced plastics?,” Compos. Sci. Technol., vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 1259–1264, 2003.
Nor et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 11198–11207 [21] [22] [23]
11207
S. N. A. Safri, M. T. H. Sultan, and F. Cardona, “Impact damage evaluation of Glass-Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) using the drop test rig - An experimental based approach,” ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci., vol. 10, no. 20, pp. 9916–9928, 2015. A. Gopinath, M. Senthil Kumar, and A. Elayaperumal, “Experimental investigations on mechanical properties of jute fiber reinforced composites with polyester and epoxy resin matrices,” in Procedia Engineering, 2014, vol. 97, pp. 2052–2063. R. S. Sikarwar, R. Velmurugan, and N. K. Gupta, “Influence of fiber orientation and thickness on the response of glass/epoxy composites subjected to impact loading,” Compos. Part B Eng., vol. 60, pp. 627–636, 2014.
ScienceDirect Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 11198–11207
www.materialstoday.com/proceedings
ICMMM - 2017
Hybrid Composites Based On Kenaf, Jute, Fiberglass Woven Fabrics: Tensile And Impact Properties A. F. M. Nora,b,*, M. T. H. Sultana,b, A. Hamdana,b, A. M. R. Azmia,b, K. Jayakrisnac a
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia b Aerospace Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC), Level 7, Tower Block, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia c School of Mechanical Engineering, VIT University, Vellore - 632 014, Tamil Nadu, India
Abstract Recently, environment and sustainability issues have arisen which resulting in remarkable achievements for green technology in the field of material production. Pertaining to this research, food tray table that are used in in-flight galley service is currently facing an environmental issue in regard of the use of non-degradable resources as the main element in food tray table production. Hence, this research is attempting an effort to propose a newly developed material, which has the element of natural fiber in hybrid composites consist of jute (J), kenaf (K) and fiberglass (FG) for food tray table with less sustainability issues. This paper presents the results of an experimental study on the mechanical properties consist of tensile and low-velocity impact properties on hybrid composites. The aim of this research is to investigate the dynamic response of the hybrid composites under low velocity impact energy, as well as to analyze the experimental data for damage characterization from the tensile and impact testing. Hybrid composites with four different configurations (FG-K-J-K-FG, FG-K-K-K-FG, FG-J-J-J-FG, FG-J-K-J-FG) is fabricating for 5 layers in the first stage, subject to the tensile testing. Meanwhile in the second stage, the best two configurations out of the four are subjecting to low-velocity impact with circular steel impactor at various energy levels from 10J to 40J. The results show that the FG-J-J-J-FG and FG-J-K-J-FG configurations of the specimens possess 90% better mechanical properties compared to FG-K-J-K-FG and FG-K-K-K-FG configurations in hybrid composites. Meanwhile, FG-J-J-J-FG is showing the best configuration for the newly develop material in impact test. In conclusion, these hybrid composites are viable to extend into a newly develop material for further investigation. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Selection and/or Peer-review under responsibility of International Conference on Materials Manufacturing and Modelling (ICMMM - 2017).
Keywords: hybrid composites; tensile; low velocity impact
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +6012-4847260; fax: +603-86567125. E-mail address: [email protected] 2214-7853 © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Selection and/or Peer-review under responsibility of International Conference on Materials Manufacturing and Modelling (ICMMM - 2017).
Nor et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 11198–11207
11199
1. Introduction The utilization of composite materials has become the new alternative as compared to the traditional metals for some aircraft machine parts mostly due to their quality increment, durability, resistance from corrosion and fatigue, and also tolerance towards any kind of damages. Recently, composites materials are applied massively in advanced structures [1]. In addition, sustainability and environmental issues had been arising significantly in the matter of time in order toward less pollution and greener Earth. Therefore, more extensive researches had been conducted to promote the efficient and advanced biodegradable composite materials to replace existing non-biodegradable synthetic composites materials at a lower rate and lower cost [2]. Furthermore, the current researches show that it is possible for natural fiber as reinforcement materials in composite due to its performance compare to the glass fiber reinforced composite (GFRC) and resulting in an arisen the new era of biocomposites[3]. The utilization of lower cost composite structures is now used as a part of construction, marine, and even wind energy businesses. There are currently numerous uses of composites in the space and aircraft industry. For example, the Airbus A350 is now made of half composites that are still in production [4]. By using composite material as the body of aircraft construction, it decreases the cost of maintenance, requirement for weakness-related investigations, and lessen fuel consumption [5] [6]. Besides that, researchers are currently exploring the application of hybrid composites. Hybrid composites can be defined as two or more fiber are consolidated in a single matrix, where the fibers can be from natural fibers, artificial fibers and with a mix of both natural and artificial fibers [7]. The improvement of lightweight and resistant to high temperature composite materials will lessen fuel usage, enhance proficiency and decrease coordinate working expenses of airplanes. Fiberglass is the most common composite material, which consists of glass fibers embedded in a resin matrix. In spite the fact that the strength quality is lower than carbon fiber, the material is far less brittle, and the raw materials for production is less costly. Its bulk strength and weight properties are comparable with metals and be easily shaped using molding processes. Fiberglass was initially used in the aircraft as a part of the Boeing 707 passenger jet in the 1950s, where two percent of composite was used in the structure. Every era of new aircraft worked by Boeing had an expanded rate of composite material usage; the highest percentage of composite use in the next-to-be-released 787 Dreamliner [8]. Unlike with another composites, classification of fiberglass can be determined by letter designation for each type. The types of fiberglass according to letter designation with their property or characteristic respectively can be defined as shown in the Table 1. Table 1: Types of fiberglass [9]. Letter designation
Characteristic
E, electrical
Low electrical conductivity
A, alkali
High alkali or soda lime glass
C, chemical
High chemical durability
D, dielectric
Low dielectric constant
R, reinforcement
High stiffness
S, strength
High strength
11200
Nor et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 11198–11207
E-glass is the most widely recognized type of glass fiber, which is alumino-borosilicate glass with less than 1% w/w alkali oxides, basically used for glass-strengthened plastics. Different sorts of glass used are A-glass (Alkalilime glass with almost none boron oxide), E-CR-glass (Electrical/Chemical Resistance; alumino-lime silicate with under 1% w/w soluble base oxides, with high corrosive resistance), C-glass (antacid lime glass with high boron oxide content, used for glass staple strands and protection), D-glass (borosilicate glass, named for its low Dielectric steady), R-glass (alumino silicate glass without MgO and CaO with high mechanical prerequisites as Reinforcement), and S-glass (alumino silicate glass without CaO however with high MgO content with high tensile strength). Table 2 shows the overall view of the advantages and disadvantages of fiberglass. Table 2: Advantages and disadvantages of fiberglass [10] Advantages
Disadvantages
High strength
High cost
High resistance to corrosion
Easy to stain
Waterproof and non-conductive
Good frequency absorber
Weaken easily when exposed to cold temperature
Cost effectiveness maintenance
Hazardous to handle in process manufacture
in
term
of
The interest of researchers exploring the science in natural fibers and industrial application are increased. Their mechanical properties gave competiveness to the other material in term of production [11]. They are cheap, renewable, totally or partially recyclable and biodegradable [12]. Natural fibers can be divided into plant fiber, animal sources and mineral sources. Kenaf, jute, bamboo, flax, coir, and cotton are example of plant fiber. Meanwhile, the examples of fiber from animal sources are silk and wool [13]. They can be a suitable green alternative to synthetic, glass, and carbon fibers used for composites field due to their rapid renewability, long term availability, low density and price as well as pleasing mechanical properties. Their applications can be seen in automobiles, aerospace, construction industries, military applications, consumer products and packaging [14]. Natural plant fibers can be divided into several main categories as shown in the Figure 1. Wool/hair
Lamb’s wool, goat hair, horsehair
Silk
Tussah silk, mulberry silk
Seed
Cotton, kapok, milkweed
Fruit
Coir
Bast
Flax, jute, kenaf
Leaf
Pineapple, abaca, sisal
Stalk
Wheat, maize, barley
Cane, grass & reed fibers
Bamboo, bagasse, esparto
Animal
Natural fibers
Vegetable
Mineral fibers
Asbestos, brucite, wollastonite
Figure 1: Classification of natural fibers [15].
Nor et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 11198–11207
11201
In the olden days, natural fibers have been developed and utilized thoroughly for non-structural applications and have additionally been utilized for applications in the housing department, usually as rooftop material and house insulation. A huge variety is found in the properties of natural fibers [16]. In addition, the properties are also influenced by the location of where the fibers are grown, the conditions in which the fibers are developed, the part of the plant they are harvested from, the period of growing, and any retting or removing forms [17]. Table 3 shows the overall view of the pros and cons of natural fiber. Table 3: Advantages and disadvantages of natural fibers [12]. Advantages
Disadvantages
Renewable resources
Lower strength (especially impact strength)
Lightweight
Low cost
Poor moisture resistance that resulting swelling of the fibers
High specific strength
Restricted maximum processing temperature
Low energy required during production
Lower durability
Disposal by composting
Poor fire resistance
Good thermal insulation
Poor fiber or matrix adhesion
Jute fibers and kenaf fibers had been acknowledged can be reinforced into the composites throughout plenty of researches. Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) is an herbaceous plant that grows annually and can be grown under various weather conditions. Kenaf fiber is picked because of its high specific mechanical properties, possesses fairly low density, minimal cost and effortlessly recycled like any other natural fibers [18]. Besides that, kenaf plant can be easily obtained from Bangladesh, USA, South Africa, India, Thailand and India. Currently, the productions of kenaf fibers are increasing throughout the world. Jute fiber is retrieved from herbaceous yearly plants, white Corchorus capsularis that is originated from Asia and Corchorus olitorius, from Africa. It can be planted in river flats, which most food crops are unavailable to plant there and pesticides or fertilizers are not needed during the growth of jute; so, jute is can be defined as green agroproduct [19]. The jute fiber owns moderate high specific strength, stiffness and modulus, which can leads to enhance composites. Wanbua et al. stated that in their research by using traditional glass fiber reinforced by jute fibers that the composite become lower specifies gravity and higher specific modulus (40GPa) compared to the fiberglass. However, the Young’s modulus and the tensile strength of the composites in their research are lower than those glass fiber [20]. That is why jute and kenaf are chosen in this research. Jute and kenaf fiber are found in the fabrication of new composites because of its low cost of production and renewable nature. Currently, the material is planned to be used as the tertiary component in aircraft galley service, such as food tray table until it can be further tested for secondary and primary components. Many passenger seats in aircraft are equipped with foldable tray tables. The food tray tables can be used for eating, working, or for supporting small items during transport. The tray table's in-flight service is used amid transport and stowed for departure, landing, and different unsafe flight conditions. As indicated by Egret Aviation Co., Ltd. Organization in China, which holds the manufacturing of food tray table, their item is made of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene (ABS) consolidated with Poly-Vinyl Chloride (PVC) with measurement of 378mm x 270mm x 20mm. Planning and assembling of airship service equipment is the main business of their company. Regarding to the food tray from the previous company, it is well known that the material used for manufacturing is a combination of ABS and PVC. ABS polymers are opaque thermoplastic resins formed by the polymerization of acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene monomers. A diverse combination of properties makes them classified in plastics family. Meanwhile, PVC is a thermoplastic synthetic material made by polymerizing vinyl chloride. The properties rely upon its additional plasticizer.
11202
Nor et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 11198–11207
The main problem is both of the common materials in the manufacturing of the food tray table are not biodegradable and have a sustainability issues. Therefore, this project proposes a newly develop hybrid composite without using any of these materials in production of the food tray table and replace with epoxy resin as the matrix. Epoxy resin is chosen as the matrix because does not required high temperature and energy for the production compared to the production of ABS and PVC. In conclusion, the recently developed hybrid composite is predicted to have a less maintainability issues as compared to the existing one. 2. Experiment Procedure The test material is fabricated with four different configurations of hybrid reinforcement composites consisted of fiberglass (FG), jute fiber (J) and kenaf fiber (K) in the form of woven fiber. Each specimen is consisted of five layers following configuration with thickness of specimen before and after compression as shown in the Table 4. Table 4: Configurations of 5 layers Thickness (mm)
Specimen (Configuration)
Before compression
After compression
SP1 (FG-K-J-K-FG)
4.15
3.15
SP2 (FG-K-K-K-FG)
5.05
4.00
SP3 (FG-J-J-J-FG)
2.35
1.60
SP4 (FG-J-K-J-FG)
3.25
2.10
Each type of materials is cut into 300mm x 300mm square. The specimens are fabricated using hand lay up technique. The process of preparing the compound is based on a 2:1 ratio; that is, two portions of epoxy to one portion of hardener. The epoxy resin and hardener used are types Zeepoxy HL002TA and Zeepoxy HL002TB. Then, the specimen is covered with another metal plate and compressed using a compression machine to squeeze out excess epoxy. The specimen was then cured in compressed condition for 48 hours. In order to complete the curing process, the specimens are post-cured in an oven at 80°C for two hours. Then, the specimens are cooled down to room temperature. All four configurations of the specimens were cut using vertical saw machine following ASTM D-3039 standard, which is 250mm x 25mm for the tensile test. Mechanical properties of specimens are determined through tensile tests. Then the results are compared and analyzed. After that, the best two configurations are chosen to observe the difference damage progression with low velocity impact test. An impact test is a test for determining the material’s ability to resist high-rate loading and the energy absorbed in fracturing a test piece at certain amount of velocity. . Before the impact test is carried out, the new specimens from the best two configurations are fabricated with different numbers of layer in order to achieve the thickness required for the testing. The specimens for impact test were cut according to Boeing Standard Specifications, BSS 7260, which is 150mm x 100mm. After the thickness of the specimen is measured and fulfill the requirement, the specimens are tested in low velocity impact test by using Dropweight Tester Machine. 2.1. Mechanical testing Tensile tests are performed in accordance to ASTM D-3039 standards and repeat it five times for accurate result. The displacement will be measured with vernier calipers. The test was carried out using Instron 3366 with a capacity of 10kN, maximum speed of 1000mm/min and vertical test space of 1193mm. The speed used for all configurations are 1mm/min. The specimens were marked and clamped at 50mm on the top and bottom end part of the specimen. The elastic modulus, failure strain and tensile strength will be calculated from the stress-strain result.
Nor et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 11198–11207
11203
2.2. Impact testing The machine that had been used for the impact test was Imatek, IM10 Drop Weight Impact Tester which gives out higher accuracy, more precise results, the reliability is more trusted and strong security standards. IM10 Drop Machine has an exceedingly versatile range of drop weight impact testers for performing an extensive variety of medium energy tests on materials, materials and the finished results of different geometry. This machine is the research grade instrumentation and has an exceptionally rigid construction for higher precision test results. Guided mass framework was used to guarantee the impact geometry was accurate throughout the whole process. In this step, by using formula of energy, E = mgh Where,
(1)
m = mass g = gravity h = height E = energy
The value of mass is the mass of drop impactor, gravitational is constant with 9.81 ms-2 and energy is represent by impact energy value. In order to verify the results of tensile, impact test had been done with added layers from five layers to nine layers in order to fulfill the required thickness for the test. Beforehand the real testing will be conducted; preliminary test had been done to validate the data [21]. The reason that preliminary test had been conducted as the pilot test to measure the highest energy level that material can withstand the impact energy and avoid full penetration from occur. This process is done to observe the damage progression to the specimens. The results from the preliminary test show that the highest energy for both configurations is 40 Joules. Then, increment of 10 Joules from zero until 40 Joules is chosen in order to fulfill the observation of damage progression. Therefore, the heights or the distances of the drop mass for each specimen were calculated beforehand to achieve the energy input. The height of the impactor to the specimen is shown in Table 5 correspond to the impact energy respectively. Table 5: Height of the impactor according to the impact energy Energy (J) 10 20 30 40
Height (m) 0.199 0.399 0.599 0.799
3. Results and discussion 3.1. Tensile test
Specimen
Tensile Stress (MPa)
Table 6: Data from tensile test Tensile Strain (%) Modulus (GPa)
Maximum Load (N)
SP1
52.99
2.55
4.54
4172.64
SP2
62.44
2.82
4.09
6243.93
SP3
124.05
2.49
7.79
4961.84
SP4
73.63
2.38
5.60
3865.69
11204
Nor et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 11198–11207
Table 6 shows the result of tensile test. High value in Young’s Modulus is also the main factors in selecting SP3 composite to be strongest materials, followed by SP4 composite with average Young Modulus of 5.60GPa and tensile stress of 73.63MPa. Young’s Modulus value indicates that the material has a high level of stiffness. The stiffness of SP3 and SP4 composites need higher loads to be elastically deformed as compared to SP1 and SP2 composites. SP2 composites are the weakest materials out of all four configurations with lowest value in Young’s Modulus. However, this composite has the highest average values of maximum load. This means that configuration needs more load in order to make the composite undergo deformation. Besides, configuration plays significant factor for determining the mechanical properties of the composite. High strength fiber as outer layer in the sequence of composite improves the mechanical properties [22]. High strength and modulus woven jute fiber at the outer layer in third and fourth configurations withstand the applied load and distribute the loads uniformly. The third configuration produced the highest tensile value due to low cross sectional area. This is because the third specimen was the thinnest specimen compared to the other three specimens. Although the thickness was vary for each specimen but the thickness, length and width were put in consideration by putting the value of each parameters into the tensile testing machine. Then, it was calculated automatically to obtain the tensile strength. The comparison of tensile stress for each configuration can be seen in Figure 2 as below. The data shows that the third configuration has the highest tensile stress due to the fact that this configuration has the lowest cross sectional area. The best two configurations that are third and fourth configurations are chosen to carry on impact testing as further comparison to validate the tensile results.
Tensile stress (Mpa)
120
SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4
100 80 60 40 20 0 0
1 2 Tensile strain (%)
3
Figure 2: Tensile stress against tensile strain curve
3.2. Impact test The area under the graph shows the results of the energy absorption. The graph of force, F(kN) against displacement, s(mm) represents the energy absorbed during the impact test. Once the mass impacted the specimen, the specimen absorbed some energy or weight impact to show it has the capability to withstand to any impact with some power impact. The graph in Figure 3 represents the relationship between energy absorption and impact energy. From the graph, we can see that third configuration has higher energy absorption at higher impact energy compared to fourth configuration. When the impact increases, the absorbed energy also increases respectively.
Energy Absorbed (J)
Nor et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 11198–11207
11205
40 SP3
30
SP4
20 10 0 0
20 Impact energy (J)
40
Figure 3: Energy absorbed-impact energy curve
When the thickness of the material was compared, the third configuration has higher thickness compared to the fourth configuration. As the laminate thickness increases, the resistance offered by the laminates in delaminations increases and absorbs more energy in delaminations mode [23]. Hence, the third configuration’s energy absorption should be higher compared to the fourth configuration. Then, the result fulfils the criteria needed. Peak force (kN)
6 4 SP3
2
SP4 0 0
20 40 Impact energy (J)
60
Figure 4: Peak impact force-impact energy curve
Figure 4 shows that the average peak impact force is found to follow the same increasing trend with respect to impact energy. The impact forces generated for impacts onto SP4 are significantly larger than SP3 due to its high stiffness. This shows that SP4 is stiffer than SP3. It can be stated that the stiffer the projectile-to-target interactions are resulted from the peak impact forces. The study verified that different configuration with same number of layers give different mechanical properties. The results from the flexural test shows it can be claimed that the best two configurations out of four are third (SP3) and fourth (SP4) configuration. The material properties will affect the stiffness of the structure and the contact stiffness will have a significant effect on the dynamic response of the structure. In relation to this research, high thickness reduces the damage of the structures. The fourth configuration (SP4) shows excellent results compared to the third configuration is differing from the results from tensile. For the tensile test, the results show the third configuration (SP3) has better mechanical properties compared to the fourth configuration (SP4). When the layers of the specimen were increased in the impact test, the mechanical properties have changed and the results are contrasted. In impact test, the fourth configuration (SP4) has high strength, good impact resistance and a small damage area. The fourth configuration (SP4) shows that it needs little work to resist and sustain the impact force, compared to the third configuration (SP3). It can be seen at data energy absorbed where the third configuration (SP3) has higher absorption of impact to restore the pressure on specimen. Therefore, the fourth configuration (SP4) has higher peak load, lower energy absorption, slower damage progression and less severe failure mode compared to the third configuration (SP3) due to the difference in thickness and the mechanical properties for both configurations.
11206
Nor et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 11198–11207
4. Conclusion In this study, the primary objective to determine the tensile properties and also the impact testing for hybrid composite consist of woven fiberglass, woven kenaf and woven jute with different configuration has been achieved. The study verified that different configuration with same number of layers give different mechanical properties. This research may help to widespread the use of hybrid composite in the future. Data from the tensile test shows that the third configuration has the highest tensile stress value, which is 124.05MPa, compared to the other configurations. The results from the tensile test shows it can be claimed that the best two configurations out of four are third (SP3) and fourth (SP4) configuration. From the results obtained form the impact test, the energy absorbed and the peak impact force increase linearly with the impact energy for both configurations. Comparing both configurations at the same impact energy, third configuration has a lower peak force compared to fourth configuration. Therefore, fourth configuration is more impact resistant. Acknowledgements This work is supported by UPM under GP-IPM grant, 9490602. References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
M. T. H. Sultan et al., “On impact damage detection and quantification for CFRP laminates using structural response data only,” Mech. Syst. Signal Process., vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 3135–3152, 2011. A. Chauhan and P. Chauhan, “Natural Fibers and Biopolymer,” J Chem Eng Process Technol, vol. 6, 2013. M. R. Sanjay, G. R. Arpitha, and B. Yogesha, “Study on Mechanical Properties of Natural - Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer Hybrid Composites: A Review,” Mater. Today Proc., vol. 2, no. 4–5, pp. 2959–2967, 2015. T. Sathishkumar, S. Satheeshkumar, and J. Naveen, “Glass fiber-reinforced polymer composites - a review,” J. Reinf. Plast. Compos., vol. 33, no. 13, pp. 1258–1275, 2014. N. Razali, M. T. H. Sultan, F. Mustapha, N. Yidris, and M. R. Ishak, “Impact Damage on Composite Structures – A Review,” Int. J. Eng. Sci., pp. 2319–1813, 2014. A. Hamdan, F. Mustapha, K. A. Ahmad, A. S. Mohd Rafie, M. R. Ishak, and A. E. Ismail, “The Effect of Customized Woven and Stacked Layer Orientation on Tensile and Flexural Properties of Woven Kenaf Fibre Reinforced Epoxy Composites,” Int. J. Polym. Sci., vol. 2016, 2016. S. Nunna, P. R. Chandra, S. Shrivastava, and a. Jalan, “A review on mechanical behavior of natural fiber based hybrid composites,” J. Reinf. Plast. Compos., vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 759–769, 2012. M. Mrazova, “Advanced composite materials of the future in aerospace industry,” Incas Bull., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 139–150, 2013. A. McIlhagger, E. Archer, and R. McIlhagger, “Manufacturing Processes for Composite Materials and Components for Aerospace Applications,” in Polymer Composites in the Aerospace Industry, 2015, pp. 53–75. N. P. Cheremisinoff and P. N. Cheremisinoff, “Fiberglass Reinforced Plastics,” Fiberglass Reinforced Plastics. pp. 39–65, 1995. J. Holbery and D. Houston, “Natural-fiber-reinforced polymer composites in automotive applications,” JOM, vol. 58, no. 11. pp. 80– 86, 2006. M. Jawaid and H. P. S. Abdul Khalil, “Cellulosic/synthetic fibre reinforced polymer hybrid composites: A review,” Carbohydrate Polymers, vol. 86, no. 1. pp. 1–18, 2011. S. Mukhopadhyay and R. Fangueiro, “Physical Modification of Natural Fibers and Thermoplastic Films for Composites -- A Review,” J. Thermoplast. Compos. Mater., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 135–162, 2009. D. Chandramohan and Marimuthu, “A review on natural fibers,” Int. J. Res. Rev. Appl. Sci., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 194–206, 2011. H. M. Akil, M. F. Omar, A. A. M. Mazuki, S. Safiee, Z. A. M. Ishak, and A. Abu Bakar, “Kenaf fiber reinforced composites: A review,” Materials and Design, vol. 32, no. 8–9. pp. 4107–4121, 2011. S. . Joshi, L. . Drzal, A. . Mohanty, and S. Arora, “Are natural fiber composites environmentally superior to glass fiber reinforced composites?,” Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 371–376, 2004. A. Ticoalu, T. Aravinthan, and F. Cardona, “A review of current development in natural fiber composites for structural and infrastructure applications,” South. Reg. Eng. Conf., no. November, pp. 1–5, 2010. A. K. Mohanty, M. Misra, and G. Hinrichsen, “Biofibres, biodegradable polymers and biocomposites: An overview,” Macromolecular Materials and Engineering, vol. 276–277. pp. 1–24, 2000. D. Liu, G. Han, J. Huang, and Y. Zhang, “Composition and structure study of natural Nelumbo nucifera fiber,” Carbohydr. Polym., vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 39–43, 2009. P. Wambua, J. Ivens, and I. Verpoest, “Natural fibres: Can they replace glass in fibre reinforced plastics?,” Compos. Sci. Technol., vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 1259–1264, 2003.
Nor et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 11198–11207 [21] [22] [23]
11207
S. N. A. Safri, M. T. H. Sultan, and F. Cardona, “Impact damage evaluation of Glass-Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) using the drop test rig - An experimental based approach,” ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci., vol. 10, no. 20, pp. 9916–9928, 2015. A. Gopinath, M. Senthil Kumar, and A. Elayaperumal, “Experimental investigations on mechanical properties of jute fiber reinforced composites with polyester and epoxy resin matrices,” in Procedia Engineering, 2014, vol. 97, pp. 2052–2063. R. S. Sikarwar, R. Velmurugan, and N. K. Gupta, “Influence of fiber orientation and thickness on the response of glass/epoxy composites subjected to impact loading,” Compos. Part B Eng., vol. 60, pp. 627–636, 2014.