| Literature DB >> 35956693 |
Thinesh Sharma Balakrishnan1, Mohamed Thariq Hameed Sultan1,2,3, Jesuarockiam Naveen4, Farah Syazwani Shahar1, Muhammad Imran Najeeb1, Ain Umaira Md Shah1, Tabrej Khan5, Tamer Ali Sebaey5,6.
Abstract
Application of synthetic fibres in composites has been raising environmental issues due to carbon emissions from the production site and reliability on non-renewable resources upon production. Hence, this research sets as a preliminary study to select suitable natural fibres to be hybridized with glass fibres for the development of sustainable and high-performance hybrid composites as potential alternative to conventional pultruded fibreglass composites in structural profile applications. In this study, analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was conducted to select the ideal natural fibre as reinforcement in the hybrid pultruded FRP composites suitable for structural applications. Hence, 13 natural fibre candidates were selected as alternatives and six criteria were chosen and analysed to select the best candidate for pultruded hybrid FRP. Criteria such as tensile strength, tensile modulus, density, cellulose content, elongation, and availability of fibres were assigned as the standard of selecting natural fibres for the application intended in this study. Among the 13 alternatives, kenaf was found to be the most suitable reinforcement for the application as it yielded the highest priority vector at 0.1. The results were then validated by carrying out sensitivity analysis to ensure kenaf is the most suitable material for the research.Entities:
Keywords: analytical hierarchy process; hybrid polymer composites; natural fibre; synthetic fibre
Year: 2022 PMID: 35956693 PMCID: PMC9371023 DOI: 10.3390/polym14153178
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Mechanical, physical, and chemical properties of fibres.
| Fibres | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Tensile Modulus (GPa) | Density (g/cm3) | Elongation (%) | Cellulose Content (%) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bagasse | 20–290 | 19.7–27.1 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 52.4 | [ |
| Bamboo | 230–295 | 17 | 1.1 | 11 | 54.6 | [ |
| Banana | 355 | 33.8 | 1.35 | 5.3 | 65 | [ |
| Coir | 220 | 6 | 1.25 | 15–25 | 43 | [ |
| Cotton | 400 | 12 | 1.51 | 3–10 | 82.7 | [ |
| Flax | 500–1500 | 60–80 | 1.4 | 1.2–1.6 | 64.1 | [ |
| Hemp | 550–900 | 70 | 1.48 | 1.6 | 74.4 | [ |
| Jute | 400–800 | 10–30 | 1.46 | 1.8 | 64.4 | [ |
| Kenaf | 930 | 53 | 1.2 | 2.7–6.9 | 53.4 | [ |
| Oil Palm | 248 | 3.2 | 1.55 | 2.5 | 65 | [ |
| Pineapple leaf (PALF) | 170–1627 | 53 | 1.5 | 1–3 | 70 | [ |
| Ramie | 500 | 44 | 1.5 | 2 | 68.6 | [ |
| Sisal | 600–700 | 38 | 1.33 | 2–3 | 65.8 | [ |
| E-glass | 2000–3500 | 70 | 2.5 | 2.8 | - | [ |
Figure 1AHP methodology flowchart.
Figure 2Hierarchical structure.
Importance scale for PCM analysis [66].
| Relative Intensity Scale | Definition |
|---|---|
| 1 | Equal importance of |
| 3 | Slightly more importance of |
| 5 | High importance of |
| 7 | Very high importance of |
| 9 | Extreme importance of |
| 2, 4, 6, 8 | Intermediate values between two adjacent judgements |
Average Random Consistency [27].
| Size of Matrix | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RI | 0 | 0 | 0.58 | 0.9 | 1.12 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 1.41 | 1.45 | 1.49 |
Figure 3(a) Relative importance with respect to the goal. (b) Relative importance with respect to the tensile strength. (c) Relative importance with respect to the tensile modulus. (d) Relative importance with respect to the density. (e) Relative importance with respect to the elongation. (f) Relative importance with respect to the cellulose content.
Figure 4(a) Synthesis of criteria with respect to the goal. (b) Synthesis of natural fibres with respect to the tensile strength. (c) Synthesis of natural fibres with respect to the tensile modulus.
Figure 5(a) Synthesis of natural fibres with respect to the density. (b) Synthesis of natural fibres with respect to the elongation at break. (c) Synthesis of natural fibres with respect to the cellulose content.
Figure 6Overall synthesis result.
Figure 7(a) Performance chart of the priority vector. (b) Performance chart with the priority vector increased to 20% for tensile strength. (c) Performance chart with the priority vector increased to 20% for density.
Fibre ranking when priority vector increased by 20% for each criterion.
| Rank | Tensile Strength | Tensile Modulus | Density | Elongation | Cellulose | Availability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kenaf | Flax | Kenaf | Coir | Kenaf | Kenaf |
| 2 | Flax | Hemp | Flax | Kenaf | Palf | Palf |
| 3 | Palf | Kenaf | Palf | Bamboo | Flax | Flax |
| 4 | Hemp | Palf | Hemp | Cotton | Hemp | Hemp |
| 5 | Jute | Sisal | Sisal | Palf | Sisal | Bamboo |
| 6 | Sisal | Ramie | Bamboo | Flax | Jute | Banana |
| 7 | Ramie | Banana | Jute | Hemp | Cotton | Coir |
| 8 | Banana | Jute | Banana | Banana | Ramie | Sisal |
| 9 | Cotton | Bamboo | Coir | Sisal | Banana | Jute |
| 10 | Bamboo | Bagasse | Ramie | Ramie | Bamboo | Bagasse |
| 11 | Coir | Cotton | Cotton | Jute | Coir | Ramie |
| 12 | Bagasse | Coir | Bagasse | Oil Palm | Bagasse | Cotton |
| 13 | Oil Palm | Oil Palm | Oil Palm | Bagasse | Oil Palm | Oil Palm |