| Literature DB >> 35160392 |
Maurício Maia Ribeiro1, Miriane Alexandrino Pinheiro1, Jean da Silva Rodrigues2, Roberto Paulo Barbosa Ramos2, Alessandro de Castro Corrêa2, Sérgio Neves Monteiro3, Alisson Clay Rios da Silva4, Verônica Scarpini Candido1.
Abstract
Mechanical properties of composites reinforced with lignocellulosic fibers have been researched in recent decades. Jute and mallow fibers are reinforcement alternatives, as they can contribute to increase the mechanical strength of composite materials. The present work aims to predict the Young's modulus with application of continuous and aligned lignocellulosic fibers to be applied as reinforcement in polyester matrix. Fibers were manually separated and then arranged and aligned in the polyester matrix. Composites with addition 5, 15, and 25 vol% jute and mallow fibers were produced by vacuum-assisted hand lay-up/vaccum-bagging procedure. Samples were tested in tensile and the tensile strength, elasticity modulus, and deformation were determined. Results showed that the intrinsic Young's modulus of the fibers was set at values around 17.95 and 11.72 GPa for jute and mallow fibers, respectively. Statistical analysis showed that composites reinforced with 15 and 25 vol% jute and mallow presented the highest values of tensile strength and Young's modulus. The incorporation of 25 vol% of jute and mallow fibers increased the matrix Young's modulus by 534% and 353%, respectively, effectively stiffening the composite material. Prediction models presented similar values for the Young's modulus, showing that jute and mallow fibers might be used as potential reinforcement of polymeric matrices.Entities:
Keywords: micro-mechanics; natural fiber; tensile properties; vacuum-assisted hand lay-up
Year: 2022 PMID: 35160392 PMCID: PMC8839452 DOI: 10.3390/polym14030401
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Chemical composition of natural fibers.
| Fiber Type | Cellulose | Hemicellulose | Lignin | Wax | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jute | 50–72 | 12–20 | 8–13 | 0.5 | [ |
| Mallow | 56–72 | 27–29 | 10–12 | 0.6 | [ |
Figure 1Manufacturing of fiber composites: (a) for mallow; (b) vacuum-bagging technique; (c) composite laminates produced; (d) specimens.
Figure 2Experimental set-up with strain gage and extensometer for mechanical testing of composites (tensile test).
Figure 3Scanning electron microscopy of fibers: (a) jute fiber; (b) mallow fiber. Magnification of 2.5.
Figure 4Optical microscopy showing specifics diameters: (a) for jute fiber and (b) mallow fiber.
Properties and result of tensile tests of samples fiber.
| Fiber | Average Diameter | Density | Tensile Strength | Total Strain | Young’s Modulus |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jute Fiber | 78.00 ± 15.57 | 1.482 ± 0.055 | 380.87 ± 89.32 | 0.0292 ± 0.012 | 17.955 ± 6.57 |
| Mallow | 79.74 ± 18.15 | 1.148 ± 0.068 | 446.80 ± 104.47 | 0.0722 ± 0.030 | 11.725 ± 4.09 |
Properties of samples of fiber polyester composites.
| Composite | Manufacturing Condition | Description | Fiber Volume Fraction | Void Volume Fraction | Density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neat Polyester Matrix | Hand lay-up method | PM * | 0 | NA ** | 1.249 ± 0.0310 |
| Polyester/Jute fiber | Vacuum-assisted | J5% | 5 | 19.58 | 1.115 ± 0.0115 |
| J15% | 15 | 10.34 | 1.154 ± 0.0136 | ||
| J25% | 25 | 10.76 | 1.172 ± 0.0055 | ||
| Polyester/Mallow fiber | M5% | 5 | 12.60 | 1.097 ± 0.0037 | |
| M15% | 15 | 9.70 | 1.112 ± 0.0136 | ||
| M25% | 25 | 3.91 | 1.176 ± 0.0162 |
* PM polyester matrix; ** NA not applicable.
Figure 5Typical stress versus strain curves: (a) for jute composites and (b) for mallow composites with different volume fraction.
Result of tensile tests of samples of fiber polyester composites.
| Composite | Manufacturing Condition | Description | Fiber Volume | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Total Strain | Young’s Modulus |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neat Polyester | Hand lay-up | NA * | 0 | 23.35 ± 4.46 | 0.0451 ± 0.0072 | 0.501 ± 0.084 |
| Polyester/Jute fiber | Vacuum-assisted hand lay-up/vacuum-bagging method | J5% | 5 | 23.88 ± 4.22 | 0.0087 ± 0.0014 | 0.934 ± 0.136 |
| J15% | 15 | 58.37 ± 2.53 | 0.0091 ± 0.0026 | 2.831 ± 0.166 | ||
| J25% | 25 | 62.11 ± 2.12 | 0.0078 ± 0.0083 | 3.177 ± 0.794 | ||
| Polyester/Mallow fiber | M5% | 5 | 17.93 ± 3.20 | 0.0064 ± 0.0024 | 0.847 ± 0.080 | |
| M15% | 15 | 39.11 ± 2.62 | 0.0066 ± 0.0023 | 1.744 ± 0.179 | ||
| M25% | 25 | 45.82 ± 1.13 | 0.0069 ± 0.0009 | 2.271 ± 0.561 |
* NA not Applicable.
Analysis of variance for composites reinforced with jute fiber.
| Maximum Strength (MPa) | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Between the groups | 5044.28 | 3 | 1681.428 | 12.89 | 3.411 | 3.42 × 10−4 |
| Inside the group | 1696.32 | 13 | 130.486 | |||
| Total | 6740.60 | 16 | ||||
| Young’s Modulus (GPa) | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Between the groups | 23.69 | 3 | 7.898 | 56.30 | 3.287 | 2.14 × 10−8 |
| Inside the group | 2.10 | 15 | 0.140 | |||
| Total | 25.80 | 18 | ||||
| Total Strain (mm/mm) | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Between the groups | 0.0047 | 3 | 1.56 × 10−3 | 72.98 | 3411 | 8.70 × 10−9 |
| Inside the group | 0.0003 | 13 | 2.14 × 10−5 | |||
| Total | 0.0050 | 16 | ||||
Results obtained for differences between the average values for PM, J5%, J15%, and J25% after applying the Tukey test.
| Maximum Strength | Young’s Modulus | Total Strain | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MP | J5% | J15% | J25% | MP | J5% | J15% | J25% | MP | J5% | J15% | J25% | |
| MP | 0.00 | 0.53 |
|
| 0.000 | 0.433 |
|
| 0.0000 |
|
|
|
| J5% | 0.53 | 0.00 |
|
| 0.433 | 0.000 |
|
|
| 0.0000 | 0.0004 | 0.0009 |
| J15% |
|
| 0.00 | 3.74 |
|
| 0.000 | 0.346 |
| 0.0004 | 0.0000 | 0.0013 |
| J25% |
|
| 3.74 | 0.00 |
|
| 0.346 | 0.000 |
| 0.0009 | 0.0013 | 0.0000 |
Analysis of variance for composites reinforced with mallow fiber.
| Maximum Strength (MPa) | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Between the groups | 1844.06 | 3 | 614.687 | 52.38 | 3.411 | 1.61 × 10−7 |
| Inside the group | 152.55 | 13 | 11.734 | |||
| Total | 1996.61 | 16 | ||||
| Young’s Modulus (GPa) | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Between the groups | 10.00 | 3 | 3.333 | 42.57 | 3.098 | 7.18 × 10−9 |
| Inside the group | 1.57 | 20 | 0.078 | |||
| Total | 11.57 | 23 | ||||
| Total Strain (mm/mm) | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Between the groups | 0.0052 | 3 | 1.75 × 10−3 | 87.38 | 3.411 | 6.13 × 10−9 |
| Inside the group | 0.0003 | 13 | 2 × 10−5 | |||
| Total | 0.0055 | 16 | ||||
Results obtained for differences between the average values for PM, M5%, M15%, and M25% after applying the Tukey test.
| Maximum Strength | Young’s Modulus | Total Strain | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MP | M5% | M15% | M25% | MP | M5% | M15% | M25% | MP | M5% | M15% | M25% | |
| MP | 0.00 | 5.42 |
|
| 0.000 | 0.346 |
|
| 0.0000 |
|
|
|
| M5% | 5.42 | 0.00 |
|
| 0.346 | 0.000 |
|
|
| 0.0000 | 0.0002 | 0.0005 |
| M15% |
|
| 0.00 | 6.71 |
|
| 0.000 | 0.527 |
| 0.0002 | 0.0000 | 0.0003 |
| M25% |
|
| 6.71 | 0.00 |
|
| 0.527 | 0.000 |
| 0.0005 | 0.0003 | 0.0000 |
Figure 6Young’s modulus of versus fiber volume fraction: experimental results.
Variation of predicted Young’s modulus for jute and mallow fiber polyester composites.
| Composite | Fiber Volume Fraction (%) | Young’s Modulus (GPa) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROM | Al-Quresh | Madsen | Halpin-Tsai | Nielsen | Shah | ||
| Polyester/Jute fiber | 5 | 1.337 | 1.337 | 0.865 | 1.332 | 1.334 | 0.540 |
| 10 | 3.078 | 3.078 | 2.474 | 3.065 | 3.069 | 1.260 | |
| 15 | 4.751 | 4.751 | 3.784 | 4.733 | 4.738 | 1.809 | |
| Polyester/Mallow fiber | 5 | 1.064 | 1.064 | 0.812 | 1.061 | 1.062 | 0.546 |
| 10 | 2.201 | 2.201 | 1.795 | 2.195 | 2.197 | 0.966 | |
| 15 | 3.147 | 3.147 | 2.905 | 3.138 | 3.141 | 1.453 | |
Figure 7Young’s modulus of versus fiber volume fraction: Al-Quresh, Madsen, and ROM models.
Figure 8Young’s modulus of versus fiber volume fraction: Halpin-Tsai, Nielsen, and Shah models.