| Literature DB >> 35744201 |
Yalew Dessalegn1, Balkeshwar Singh1, Aart W van Vuure2, Ali A Rajhi3, Gulam Mohammed Sayeed Ahmed1,4, Nazia Hossain5.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to measure the strength of various bamboo fibres and their epoxy composites based on the bamboo ages and harvesting seasons. Three representative samples of 1-3-year-old bamboo plants were collected in November and February. Bamboo fibres and their epoxy composites had the highest tensile strength and Young's modulus at 2 years old and in November. The back-calculated tensile strengths using the "rule of mixture" of Injibara, Kombolcha, and Mekaneselam bamboo-fibre-reinforced epoxy composites were 548 ± 40-422 ± 33 MPa, 496 ± 16-339 ± 30 MPa, and 541 ± 21-399 ± 55 MPa, whereas the back-calculated Young's moduli using the "rule of mixture" were 48 ± 5-37 ± 3 GPa, 36 ± 4-25 ± 3 GPa, and 44 ± 2-40 ± 2 GPa, respectively. The tensile strengths of the Injibara, Kombolcha, and Mekaneselam bamboo-fibre-reinforced epoxy composites were 227 ± 14-171 ± 22 MPa, 255 ± 18-129 ± 15 MPa, and 206 ± 19-151 ± 11 MPa, whereas Young's moduli were 21 ± 2.9-16 ± 4.24 GPa, 18 ± 0.8-11 ± 0.51 GPa, and 18 ± 0.85-16 ± 0.82 GPa respectively. The highest to the lowest tensile strengths and Young's moduli of bamboo fibres and their epoxy composites were Injibara, Mekaneselam, and Kombolcha, which were the local regional area names from these fibres were extracted. The intended functional application of the current research study is the automobile industries of headliners, which substitute the conventional materials of glass fibres.Entities:
Keywords: Young’s modulus; bamboo ages; bamboo fibres; epoxy composite; harvesting season; tensile strength
Year: 2022 PMID: 35744201 PMCID: PMC9229968 DOI: 10.3390/ma15124144
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Figure 1Sample-taking techniques of the bamboo culm.
Figure 2Testing of impregnated fibre bundles: (a) six mould cavities from the top view; (b) a front view of the mould’s cavities (spacer not placed, with the vacuum film surroundings all the bamboo fibre bundle); and (c) the counter-mould in the longitudinal cross-section with the spacers.
Figure 3Extracted bamboo fibres: (a) Injibara, (b) Kombolcha, and (c) Mekaneselam.
Figure 4(a) Setup for the tensile test and (b) fracture after testing.
Figure 5Back-calculated tensile strength of Ethiopian bamboo fibres using IFBTs.
Figure 6Back-calculated Young’s moduli using IFBTs.
Figure 7Strain to failure results using IFBTs.
Figure 8The experimental and theoretical values of Young’s moduli of the composites.
Figure 9Ultimate tensile strengths of the bamboo fibres epoxy composites.
Pairwise comparisons of the mean of the tensile strength for Injibara bamboo.
| Tukey’s Method | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factors | UTS | Coeffi. | Std. Error | t | α>/t/ | 95% Confid. Interval | |
| Year | 2 and 1 | 79.6 | 29.3649 | 2.71 | 0.03 | 6.79216 | 152.408 |
| 3 and 1 | −19.1 | 29.3649 | −0.65 | 0.794 | −91.908 | 53.7078 | |
| 3 and 2 | −98.7 | 29.3649 | −3.36 | 0.006 | −171.51 | −25.892 | |
| Month | 2 and 11 | −3.4 | 28.5467 | −0.12 | 0.906 | −61.875 | 55.0753 |
Year: 1, 2, and 3 are years. Months 2 and 11 are November and February, respectively. As presented in Table 2, the pairwise comparison test revealed that 2 compared with 1 and 3 compared with 2 years old were statistically significant; however, 3 compared with 1 year old, as well as the harvesting months, were statistically insignificant at α = 0.05 for Young’s modulus of the Injibara bamboo fibres.
Pairwise comparisons of the mean of Young’s moduli for the Injibara bamboo.
| Factors | E | Tukey’s Method | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffi. | Std. Error | t | α>/t/ | 95% Confid. Interval | |||
| Years | 2 and 1 | 7.1 | 2.19106 | 3.24 | 0.009 | 1.66745 | 12.5326 |
| 3 and 1 | 0.6 | 2.191059 | 0.27 | 0.96 | −4.83255 | 6.032551 | |
| 3 and 2 | −6.5 | 2.191059 | −2.97 | 0.017 | −11.9326 | −1.06745 | |
| Months | 2 and 11 | 2.06667 | 2.10004 | 0.98 | 0.333 | −2.2351 | 6.3684 |
Pairwise comparisons of the mean of the tensile strengths for the Kombolch bamboo.
| Factors | UTS | Tukey’s Method | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffi. | Std. Error | t | α>/t/ | 95% Confid. Interval | |||
| Ages (Yrs) | 2 and 1 | 144 | 30.46 | 4.73 | 0.000 | 68.45 | 219.55 |
| 3 and 1 | 129 | 30.46 | 4.23 | 0.001 | 53.45 | 204.55 | |
| 3 and 2 | −15 | 30.46 | −0.49 | 0.876 | −90.55 | 60.55 | |
| Months | 2 and 11 | 23.13 | 34.27 | 0.67 | 0.505 | −47.069 | 93.34 |
Pairwise comparisons of the mean of Young’s moduli for the Kombolcha bamboo.
| Factors | Compar. | Tukey’s Method | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffi. | Std. Error | t | >/t/ | 95% Confid. Interval | |||
| Ages (Yrs) | 2 and 1 | 11.3 | 2.93 | 3.86 | 0.002 | 4.033 | 18.57 |
| 3 and 1 | 12.6 | 2.93 | 4.3 | 0.001 | 5.33 | 19.87 | |
| 3 and 2 | 1.3 | 2.93 | 0.44 | 0.898 | -5.97 | 8.57 | |
| Months | 2 and 11 | 6.47 | 2.93 | 2.2 | 0.036 | 0.459 | 12.475 |
Comparisons of tensile strengths for the Mekaneselam bamboo (Y. alpina) due to the effects of ages and harvesting months.
| Factors | Comparison | Tukey’s Method | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffi. | Std. Error | t | α>/t/ | 95% Confid. Interval | |||
| Ages (Yrs) | 2 and 1 | 16.4 | 19.37 | 0.85 | 0.678 | −31.63 | 64.43 |
| 3 and 1 | −97.7 | 19.37 | −5.04 | 0.000 | −145.73 | −49.67 | |
| 3 and 2 | −114.1 | 19.37 | −5.89 | 0.000 | −162.13 | −66.07 | |
| Months | 2 and 11 | 23.2 | 24.17 | 0.96 | 0.345 | −26.32 | 72.72 |
Pairwise comparisons of the mean of Young’s moduli for the Mekaneselam bamboo.
| Factors | Comparison | Tukey’s Method | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffi. | Std. Error | t | α>/t/ | 95% Confid. Interval | |||
| Ages (Yrs) | 2 and 1 | 1.1 | 0.918 | 1.2 | 0.464 | −1.18 | 3.38 |
| 3 and 1 | −3 | 0.918 | −3.27 | 0.008 | −5.28 | −0.72 | |
| 3 and 2 | −4.1 | 0.918 | −4.47 | 0.000 | −6.38 | −1.82 | |
| Months | 2 and 11 | 0.667 | 0.977 | 0.68 | 0.501 | −1.335 | 2.668 |