| Literature DB >> 33261104 |
Ganesan Karuppiah1, Kailasanathan Chidambara Kuttalam2, Murugesan Palaniappan3, Carlo Santulli4, Sivasubramanian Palanisamy5.
Abstract
In the present study, a model is presented to optimize the fabrication parameters of natural fiber reinforced polyester matrix composites with dual fillers. In particular, jute fiber mat was chosen as reinforcement and eggshell powder (ESP) and montmorillonite nanoclay (NC) were selected as fillers. The weight per square meter (GSM) of the fiber, the weight percentage of ESP and NC have been chosen as independent variables and the influence of these variables on tensile, flexural and impact strength of the composite has been inspected. The permutations of the different combinations of factors are intended to accomplish higher interfacial strength with the lowest possible number of tested specimens. The experiments were designed by the Taguchi strategy and a novel multi-objective optimization technique named COPRAS (COmplex PRoportional ASsessment of alternatives) was used to determine the optimal parameter combinations. Affirmation tests were performed with the optimal parameter settings and the mechanical properties were evaluated and compared. Experimental results show that fiber GSM and eggshell powder content are significant variables that improve mechanical strength, while the nanoclay appears less important.Entities:
Keywords: COPRAS; composites; eggshell powder; jute fabric; nanoclay; optimization
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33261104 PMCID: PMC7730131 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25235579
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Experimental tensile strength (MPa) for the different specimens.
| Category | Specimen 1 | Specimen 2 | Specimen 3 | Average Value | St. Dev. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 28.6 | 30.5 | 16.8 | 29 | 7.4 |
| 2 | 29.9 | 34.2 | 29.9 | 31.3 | 2.5 |
| 3 | 28.3 | 28.3 | 33.2 | 29.9 | 2.8 |
| 4 | 38.6 | 35.4 | 26.9 | 33.6 | 6.0 |
| 5 | 32.3 | 30.1 | 29.2 | 30.5 | 1.6 |
| 6 | 31.1 | 34.4 | 32.4 | 32.6 | 1.7 |
| 7 | 35.9 | 38.4 | 41.7 | 38.7 | 2.9 |
| 8 | 44.1 | 46.8 | 42.9 | 44.6 | 2.0 |
| 9 | 36.9 | 45.6 | 35.2 | 29.2 | 5.6 |
Experimental flexural strength (MPa) for the different specimens.
| Category | Specimen 1 | Specimen 2 | Specimen 3 | Average Value | St. Dev. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 47.9 | 60.2 | 62.9 | 57 | 8 |
| 2 | 62.9 | 71 | 97.3 | 77.1 | 18 |
| 3 | 74.9 | 56.9 | 68.9 | 66.9 | 9.2 |
| 4 | 115.7 | 67.8 | 73.7 | 85.7 | 26.1 |
| 5 | 81.8 | 69.9 | 87.8 | 79.8 | 9.1 |
| 6 | 87.8 | 82.8 | 88.8 | 86.5 | 3.2 |
| 7 | 88.8 | 94.8 | 85.8 | 89.8 | 4.6 |
| 8 | 99.6 | 96.4 | 112.6 | 102.9 | 8.6 |
| 9 | 74.9 | 69.9 | 76.8 | 73.9 | 3.6 |
Experimental impact energy (J) for the different specimens.
| Category | Specimen 1 | Specimen 2 | Specimen 3 | Average Value | St. Dev. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.01 |
| 2 | 2.08 | 1.73 | 1.08 | 1.63 | 0.51 |
| 3 | 1.21 | 1.49 | 1.35 | 1.35 | 0.14 |
| 4 | 1.88 | 2.24 | 1.63 | 1.58 | 0.31 |
| 5 | 1.88 | 1.73 | 1.89 | 1.83 | 0.09 |
| 6 | 1.93 | 2.34 | 2.02 | 2.12 | 0.22 |
| 7 | 2.34 | 1.94 | 1.63 | 1.97 | 0.36 |
| 8 | 2.72 | 1.98 | 2.56 | 2.09 | 0.39 |
| 9 | 2.45 | 2.13 | 2.21 | 2.26 | 0.17 |
Experimental Shore A hardness for the different specimens.
| Category | Specimen 1 | Specimen 2 | Specimen 3 | Average Value | St. Dev. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 95.7 | 92 | 92.2 | 93.3 | 2.1 |
| 2 | 93.7 | 90 | 91.8 | 91.8 | 1.9 |
| 3 | 75.9 | 83.8 | 80.4 | 80 | 4.0 |
| 4 | 87.1 | 85.9 | 84.1 | 85.7 | 1.5 |
| 5 | 73.3 | 71.2 | 72.7 | 72.4 | 1.1 |
| 6 | 77.7 | 75.9 | 72.1 | 75.2 | 2.9 |
| 7 | 91.3 | 97.7 | 94.8 | 94.4 | 3.2 |
| 8 | 80.9 | 80.7 | 80.5 | 80.7 | 0.2 |
| 9 | 86.3 | 85.7 | 85.9 | 86 | 0.3 |
S/N ratio.
| Category | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Flexural Strength (MPa) | Impact Strength (J) | Hardness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 27.11 | 35.77 | −0.97 | −39.40 |
| 2 | 29.87 | 37.74 | 4.23 | −39.26 |
| 3 | 29.52 | 36.52 | 2.59 | −38.07 |
| 4 | 30.54 | 38.68 | 5.64 | −38.66 |
| 5 | 29.70 | 38.06 | 5.25 | −37.19 |
| 6 | 30.27 | 38.66 | 6.43 | −37.53 |
| 7 | 31.75 | 39.08 | 5.90 | −39.52 |
| 8 | 32.99 | 40.28 | 7.68 | −38.14 |
| 9 | 31.87 | 37.38 | 7.09 | −38.69 |
Normalized S/N ratio.
| Category | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Flexural Strength (MPa) | Impact Strength (J) | Hardness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.0268 | 0.0261 | −0.0055 | 0.0284 |
| 2 | 0.0270 | 0.0275 | 0.0241 | 0.0283 |
| 3 | 0.0267 | 0.0267 | 0.0148 | 0.0275 |
| 4 | 0.0277 | 0.0283 | 0.0322 | 0.0279 |
| 5 | 0.0269 | 0.0278 | 0.0300 | 0.0268 |
| 6 | 0.0274 | 0.0282 | 0.0367 | 0.0271 |
| 7 | 0.0288 | 0.0286 | 0.0337 | 0.0285 |
| 8 | 0.0298 | 0.0294 | 0.0438 | 0.0275 |
| 9 | 0.0289 | 0.0273 | 0.0405 | 0.0279 |
COPRAS analysis.
| Category | Pi | Rj | 1/Rj | Qj | Nj | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.0159 | 0.0757 | 13.21 | 0.1750 | 72.3 | 9 |
| 2 | 0.0263 | 0.1071 | 9.33 | 0.1384 | 91.3 | 7 |
| 3 | 0.0227 | 0.0957 | 10.45 | 0.1483 | 85 | 8 |
| 4 | 0.0294 | 0.1160 | 8.62 | 0.1330 | 95 | 5 |
| 5 | 0.0282 | 0.1115 | 8.97 | 0.1360 | 92.9 | 6 |
| 6 | 0.0308 | 0.1194 | 8.38 | 0.1314 | 96.1 | 4 |
| 7 | 0.0304 | 0.1195 | 8.37 | 0.1302 | 97 | 3 |
| 8 | 0.0344 | 0.1306 | 7.66 | 0.1266 | 100 | 1 |
| 9 | 0.0322 | 0.1246 | 8.03 | 0.1284 | 98.3 | 2 |
Average and max–min variation between the different factors and levels.
| Parameters | Avg. L1 | Avg. L2 | Avg. L3 | Max-Min Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A: Jute areal weight (JAW) | 82.9 | 94.6 | 98.4 | 15.5 |
| B: Eggshell powder (ESP) | 88.1 | 94.7 | 93.1 | 6.6 |
| C: Nanoclay (NC) | 91.6 | 94.8 | 89.4 | 5.4 |
Confirmation experiment results.
| Parameter | Average Values and Standard Deviation |
|---|---|
| Tensile strength (MPa) | 54.7 ± 5.5 |
| Flexural strength (MPa) | 109.2 ± 8.3 |
| Impact strength (J) | 3.14 ± 0.35 |
| Shore A hardness | 58.1 ± 6.9 |
Figure 1Morphological observations of the fractures by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). (a) Tensile fracture; (b) Flexural fracture; (c) Impact fracture.
Parameters (P) and levels (L) matrix for experimental work.
| Parameter | Variable | L1 | L2 | L3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Jute fabric areal weight (g/m2) | 44 | 45 | 46 |
| P2 | Egg shell powder (%) | 0 | 1.5 | 3 |
| P3 | Nanoclay(%) | 3 | 1.5 | 0 |
Parameters (P) and levels (L) for the different specimen categories.
| Category | P1 | P2 | P3 | Jute Fabric Areal Weight (g/m2) | Egg Shell Powder (%) | Nanoclay (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | L1 | L1 | L1 | 44 | 0 | 3 |
| 2 | L1 | L2 | L2 | 44 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
| 3 | L1 | L3 | L3 | 44 | 3 | 0 |
| 4 | L2 | L1 | L2 | 45 | 0 | 1.5 |
| 5 | L2 | L2 | L3 | 45 | 1.5 | 0 |
| 6 | L2 | L3 | L1 | 45 | 3 | 3 |
| 7 | L3 | L1 | L3 | 46 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | L3 | L2 | L1 | 46 | 1.5 | 3 |
| 9 | L3 | L3 | L2 | 46 | 3 | 1.5 |