Journal of Composite Materials 2013 Gujjala 0021998313501924

http://jcm.sagepub.com/Journal of Composite Materials

http://jcm.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/09/09/0021998313501924The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0021998313501924

published online 11 September 2013Journal of Composite MaterialsRaghavendra Gujjala, Shakuntala Ojha, SK Acharya and SK Pal

glass hybrid-reinforced epoxy composite−Mechanical properties of woven jute

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Society for Composites

can be found at:Journal of Composite MaterialsAdditional services and information for

http://jcm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jcm.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Sep 11, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

at NATIONAL INST. OF TECHNOLOGY - ROURKELA on September 13, 2013jcm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jcm.sagepub.com/

http://jcm.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/09/09/0021998313501924

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.asc-composites.org/

http://jcm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jcm.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jcm.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/09/09/0021998313501924.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


XML Template (2013) [31.8.2013–5:16pm] [1–11]//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/JCMJ/Vol00000/130466/APPFile/SG-JCMJ130466.3d (JCM) [PREPRINTER stage]

JOURNAL OFC O M P O S I T EM AT E R I A L SArticle

Mechanical properties of woven jute–glasshybrid-reinforced epoxy composite

Raghavendra Gujjala1, Shakuntala Ojha1, SK Acharya1 andSK Pal2

Abstract

As major historical periods such as Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age, the development of new materials was the

fundamental to all the periods. In the present investigation, a new hybrid composite with epoxy as a resin and reinforcing

both biowaste (jute) and traditional fiber (glass) as continues layered mat composites and also study experimentally the

effect of the stacking sequence on tensile, flexural, and interlaminar shear properties. Composites were prepared by

using hand lay-up technique. All the laminates were prepared with a total of four piles, by varying the position of glass and

jute. One group of all jute and glass laminate was also fabricated for comparison purpose. Specimen preparation and

testing were carried out as per ASTM standards. Tests were conducted on INSTRON H10KS Material Test System

at room temperature using automatic data acquisition software. The results indicated that the jute fiber and hybrid

composite give encouraging results when compared with the neat epoxy. The morphologies of the composites are also

studied by scanning electron microscope.

Keywords

Glass, jute, hybrid composites, tensile, ILSS

Introduction

The present generation researchers are showing theirinterest in using the biowaste as a reinforcing materialin the field of material sciences. Nowadays, peopledevelop the new natural fiber instead of traditionalfibers because of their low cost, combustibility, light-weight, low density, high-specific strength, renewabil-ity, nonabrasivity, nontoxicity, and biodegradability.Still, there are many challenges to overcome in orderto use reliable engineering materials for structural elem-ents. However, their use is steadily increasing in manyindustrial corporations and also planning to use thesematerials in their products.1 Natural fibers are renew-able and biodegradable material and are largely avail-able in the nature worldwide.2 Pineapple leaf,3 oil palmfiber,4 hemp, sisal, jute, kapok,5 jute,6 rice husk,7

bamboo,8 and wood9 are some natural fibers mostcommonly used as reinforcing materials in polymercomposite industry.

In the conception of composite materials, the firstand primary aim is to tailor the materials propertiesthrough the control of fiber–matrix combinations and

the selection of processing techniques. An appropriateselection of matrix and the reinforcing phase can leadto give the better strength and modulus to a compositecomparable to conventional metallic material.10–12

Natural fiber-reinforced polymer composites are usedmostly in the field of automotive, aircraft industries, themanufacturing of space ships, and sea vehicles10–14 dueto their outstanding properties.

The properties such as relatively low density andability to be tailored to have stacking sequences providehigh strength and stiffness in the direction of high load-ing, which makes these materials attractive comparedwith conventional metallic systems.15 Polymer compos-ites consist of resin and a reinforcement chosen accord-ing to the desired mechanical properties and

1Department of Mechanical Engineering, NIT Rourkela, Odisha, India2Department of Ceramic Engineering, NIT Rourkela, Odisha, India

Corresponding author:

Raghavendra Gujjala, Department of Mechanical Engineering, NIT

Rourkela, Odisha, India.

Email: [email protected]

Journal of Composite Materials

0(0) 1–11

! The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0021998313501924

jcm.sagepub.com




the application. The thermoset resin polyester, epoxy,phenolic, silicone, and polyamide resins are widelyemployed in many structural and engineeringapplications.10,14,16–18

Natural fibers also offer noteworthy cost advantagesand benefits associated with processing, as compared tosynthetic fibers such as glass, nylon, and carbon. One ofthe drawbacks of natural fibers is that the mechanicalproperties such as tensile and flexural are much loweras compared to traditional fibers and have poor resist-ance to moisture absorption.19 Hence use of naturalfiber alone in polymer matrix is inadequate in satisfac-torily tackling all the technical needs of a fiber-reinforced composite. The chemical composition ofdifferent fibers is shown in Table 1. In an effort toreduce the traditional filler and to increase the utiliza-tion of natural biowaste in the field of materials, a nat-ural fiber can be combined with a synthetic fiber in thesame matrix material so as to take the best advantageof the properties of both the fibers. This results in ahybrid composite.

Jute is a natural and recyclable vegetable bast fiberextracted from plants. Jute appears to be a promising

material because it is relatively inexpensive. The mater-ial produced by the jute fiber is reusable, sustainable,eco-friendly, and be worthy offer to industrial applica-tions. The jute plant and fiber are shown in Figure 1(a)and (b). It has intrinsic advantages like higher strength,higher modulus silky luster, low extensibility, signifi-cant heat, and fire resistance. Its only application inpackaging is constantly threatened by synthetics, andan additional area of application would be highlydesirable.24

Rana and Jayachandran25 compared jute fiber com-posites with glass fiber composite. The experimentalresult showed that the natural fiber possesses somedrawback, and it needs some modifications to enhancetheir properties.

Rahman et al.26 evaluated that with increasing thefiber loading, there is a gradual increase in the strength,Young’s modulus, flexural modulus, and hardness ofjute fiber composite, and 30% jute fiber-loading com-posite gave the optimum value for mechanicalproperties.

Ahmed et al.27 carried out systematic studies on themechanical behavior like tensile, flexural, interlaminar

Figure 1. (a) Jute plant; (b) jute fiber.

Table 1. Chemical composition of different fibers.

Species a-Cellulose (wt%) Hemicellulose (wt%) Lignin (wt%) Ash (wt%) Reference

Jute 62.6 23.2 15.86 1.29

Coconut coir 47.7 25.9 17.8 0.8 20

Sisal 63–64 12.0 10–24 – 20

Rice husk 31.3 24.3 14.3 23.5 21

Bagasse 40–46 24.5–29 12.5–20 1.5–2.4 22

Kenaf 31–39 21.5 15–19 23

2 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)




shear strength (ILSS), and water absorption of wovenjute–glass fiber hybrid-polyester composites. John andNaidu28 studied the tensile strength of unsaturatedpolyester-based sisal–glass hybrid composites withfiber loading and found out a significant improvementin tensile strength due to NaOH and trimethoxysilanetreatment. Mishra et al.29 developed and compared twodifferent types of composites: glass–sisal and glass–pineapple with polyester as resins and also studiedtheir mechanical properties such as tensile and flexuralstrength and impact strength.

Pavithran et al.30 prepared the coir–glass hybrid-polyester composites using hydroforming method andalso did a comparison between the moisture-absorptionbehavior of coir–polyster composites and hybrid com-posites. The result revealed that the properties of coirfiber composite enhanced due to the addition of glassfiber. Mohan and Kishore31 have studied the flexuraland moisture absorption behavior unidirectional jute–glass sandwich composites. The results indicated thatthe moisture absorption of the jute fiber is significantlyreduced due to hybridization.

Kalaprasad et al.32 have studied the mechanicalproperties of sisal–glass fiber-reinforced low-densitypolyethylene matrix composites by taking into accountthe effects of fiber orientation. The result showed thatlongitudinally oriented fibers exhibit better mechanicalproperties than the randomly oriented fibers. Mishraet al.33 have determined the mechanical and impactbehavior of agrowaste pineapple leaf fiber, which isrich in cellulose and potential for polymer reinforce-ment and also examined their fiber–matrix adhesionby using scanning electron microscope.

In this paper, effect of hybridization of glass andlayering sequence effect on density, tensile, flexural,and interlaminar shear properties of woven jute–glassfiber hybrid composites is studied.

Materials and methods

Raw materials

The following materials are used for laminate prepar-ation, testing, and to investigate the tribological andmechanical characteristics: jute fiber (woven), E-glassfiber, epoxy resin, and hardener HY-951.

Laminate composite fabrication

Hybrid laminates of woven jute and glass mat wereprepared by hand lay-up technique. A wooden moldof 150� 60� 5mm was used for manufacturing thecomposite. For quick and easy removal of the compos-ite, a mold release sheet was put over the glass plate.Mold release spray was also applied at the inner surface

of the mold wall after it was set on the glass plate. Fivegroups of laminate composite samples with total fourplies were manufactured by varying stacking sequenceof jute and glass fabrics as presented in Table 2. Juteand glass fabrics were preimpregnated with the matrixmaterial consisting of epoxy resin and hardener in theratio of 10:1. Care was taken to avoid the formation ofair bubbles during pouring. Pressure was then appliedfrom the top, and the mold was allowed to cure at roomtemperature for 72 h. Pressure was then applied fromthe top, and the mold was allowed to cure at roomtemperature for 72 h. During the process of pressure,some polymer squeezes out of the mold. For this, carehas already been taken during pouring. After 72 h, thesamples were taken out of the mold, and after curing,the laminate was cut into required size of mechanicaltests by diamond cutter.

The densities of epoxy resin, jute, and glass fiber,which are taken from the supplier’s data sheet, are1.2, 1.22, and 2.25 g/cm3, respectively.

Density

The density of composite materials in terms of volumefraction is found out from the following equation (1).

sct ¼w0

woð Þ þ wa � wbð Þð1Þ

where ‘‘Sct’’ represents specific gravity of the composite,W0 represents the weight of the sample, Wa representsthe weight of the bottleþkerosene, and Wb representsthe weight of the bottleþ keroseneþ sample,

�ca ¼ Sct � �k ð2Þ

where �ca represents actual density of composite and �krepresents density of kerosene.

The theoretical density of composite materials interms of weight fraction can easily be obtained from

Table 2. Laminates stacking sequence.

Symbol

Stacking

sequence

Wt% of fibersVolume

fraction (%)Jute Glass

L1 GGGG 0 100 16.6

L2 JJJJ 100 0 18.5

L3 GJGJ 50 50 17.5

L4 JGGJ 50 50 17.5

L5 GJJG 50 50 17.5

J: jute; G: glass.

Gujjala et al. 3




the following equation (3) given by Agarwal andBroutman.34

�c ¼1

wf

�fþ wm

�m

ð3Þ

where w and � represent weight fraction and density.The suffixes f, m, and c stand for the fiber, matrix, andthe composite materials, respectively.

The void content of composite sample has beendetermined as per ASTM D-2734-70 standard proced-ure. The volume fraction of voids (Vv) in the compos-ites was calculated by using equation (4).

�v ¼�t � �a�t

ð4Þ

where �t and �a are the theoretical and actual densityof composite, respectively. The void fractions of thecomposite are given in Table 3.

Tensile test

The tension test is generally performed on flat speci-mens. The most commonly used specimen geometriesare the dog-bone specimen (Figure 2) and straight-sidedspecimen with end tabs. The standard test methodas per ASTM D 3039-76 has been used; length of thetest specimen is 125mm. The tensile test is performedin universal testing machine INSTRON H10KS. At therate of loading, 10mm/min was used for testing.Tests were conducted on samples with jute fabricwarp yarns oriented in the loading direction. For eachstacking sequence, five identical specimens were tested,and average result is obtained.

Flexural test

Flexural tests were also conducted on same machine fortensile testing in accordance with ASTM D2344-84.Specimens of 150mm length and 20mm wide werecut and loaded on three points bending with a recom-mended span to depth ratio of 16:1 as shown inFigure 3. The test was conducted using the load cellof 10 kN at 2mm/min rate of loading. The flexuralstress in a three-point bending test is found out byusing equation (5).

�max ¼ð3PmaxLÞ

ðbh2Þð5Þ

where Pmax is the maximum load at failure (N), L is thespan (mm), and b and h are the width and thickness ofthe specimen (mm), respectively. The flexural modulusis calculated from the slope of the initial portion of the

Table 3. Density and void content of different composites.

Stacking

sequence

Measured

density

(gm/cm3)

Theoretical

density

(gm/cm3)

Volume

fraction of

voids (%)

Epoxy 1.186 1.2 1.16

GGGG (L1) 1.435 1.445 0.69

JJJJ (L2) 1.183 1.196 1.08

GJGJ (L3) 1.269 1.281 0.94

JGGJ (L4) 1.2276 1.241 1.09

GJJG (L5) 1.221 1.232 0.90

Figure 2. Tensile specimen.





load–deflection curve, which is found out by using thebelow equation (6).

E ¼ðmL3Þ

ð4bh3Þð6Þ

where m is the initial slope of the load deflection curvefor each stacking sequence, five specimens are tested,and average result is obtained.

Interlaminar shear strength

ILSS was found out in accordance with ASTM D2344-84. A small beam of 45mm length and squarecross section (width is equal to thickness) is loadedunder three-point bending at the rate of 1.3mm/min.As the loading cylinder exerts a downward force, thespecimen is subjected to normal (bending) and trans-verse shear stresses. By using a short beam, it isassumed that the beam is short enough to minimizebending stresses resulting in interlaminar shear failureby cracking along a horizontal plane betweenthe laminates. The force applied at the time of failurewas recorded, and the stresses were determined usingequation (7).

SH ¼ð0:75PBÞ

bhð7Þ

where SH is the interlaminar shear strength (N/mm2),PB is the breaking load (N), and b and h are the widthand depth of the specimen (mm). Span to depth ratio of5:1 was selected for the test. For each stackingsequence, five identical specimens were tested, and aver-age result is obtained.

Scanning electron microscopy

The erodent surfaces of the composite specimens areexamined directly by scanning electron microscopeJEOL JSM-6480LV. The samples are stacked onstubs with silver paste. A thin film of platinum is

vacuum-evaporated onto them to enhance the conduct-ivity of the flexural, tensile, and eroded samples beforetaking the photomicrographs.

Results and discussion

Density of jute–glass fiber epoxy composite

The density of the composite for different stackingsequences is shown in Figure 4. It is clearly viewedfrom the figure that the density of stacking sequencesL2 gives lowest value as compared to epoxy and othersequences because it contains only the jute layers. Thedensity of the remaining sequences, i.e. L1, L3, L4,and L5 composites, increases as compared to epoxycomposite. This increase in density is due to the incorp-oration of high-dense glass fiber.

Tensile strength of jute–glass fiber composite

The variation of tensile strength for various laminate-stacking sequences of jute–glass fiber epoxy compositesis shown in Figure 5. It is observed that the tensilestrength of unreinforced epoxy resin is found to be21.03MPa. When only laminates of jute and glassfibers reinforced into epoxy, it is found to be 142 and442% greater than the neat epoxy resin. An increase inthe tensile strength of 51, 41, and 66% is observed for50:50 jute–glass fiber-reinforced hybrid laminate (L3,L4, and L5) composites when compared to that ofonly jute laminate (L2) composite. The jute fiberepoxy composites give about 55% strength of theglass fiber-reinforced epoxy composites. It is alsofound that there is a sharp increase in the tensilestrength of the composites with the incorporation ofglass fibers.

Tensile modulus of jute–glass fiber composite

The variation of tensile modulus for various laminate-stacking sequences is shown in Figure 6. It is observedthat the tensile modulus of unreinforced epoxy resin isfound to be 0.821GPa. There is also a similar observa-tion seen in case of tensile modulus of the laminatedcomposites as seen in the tensile strength of the lami-nated composites. The glass fiber-epoxy compositesgive higher tensile modulus than epoxy and jute fibercomposites.

In both cases, the increase in the tensile strength andmodulus of epoxy and composites is attributed to thefact that glass fibers are stronger and stiffer than jutefibers. There is a similar observation found in Wambuaet al.35 that jute fiber has 1.8% elongation of failurewhereas glass fiber has 3%.Figure 3. Flexural specimen.

Gujjala et al. 5




Figure 4. Density of jute–glass fiber epoxy composite.

Figure 5. Tensile strength of jute–glass fiber epoxy composite.

Figure 6. Effect of stacking sequence on tensile modulus of jute–glass fiber epoxy composite.





Flexural strength of jute–glass fiber composite

The variation of flexural strength for various lami-nate-stacking sequences is shown in Figure 7. Due tothe incorporation of glass and jute fibers into theepoxy resin, the strength of the composites increasesto a great extent. The flexural strength of the unre-inforced epoxy resin is found to be 42.23MPa whereasthe flexural strength of laminate-only jute and glassfiber-reinforced composites is found to be 71 and330%, which is greater than that of the neat epoxyresin. The jute fiber gives 61% strength of the glassfiber composites. Hybrid composite L3 gives 90%strength of the glass fiber–epoxy composites.The same type of behavior is also observed byGowda et al.36

Flexural modulus of jute–glass fiber composite

The variation of flexural modulus for various laminatestacking sequences is shown in Figure 8. The flexuralmodulus of the unreinforced epoxy resin is found to be0.73MPa. There is also a similar observation seen incase of flexural modulus of the laminated composites asseen in flexural strength of the laminated composites.

Interlaminar shear strength of jute–glass fibercomposite

Interlaminar shear strength of the composites is pre-sented in Figure 9 for different stacking sequences.The plots show similar trend as for flexural tests. Thejute laminates exhibit an average interlaminar shear

Figure 7. Flexural strength of jute–glass fiber epoxy composite.

Figure 8. Effect of stacking sequence on flexural modulus of jute–glass fiber epoxy composite.

Gujjala et al. 7




stress value of 2.65MPa. Addition of glass fiber asextreme plies increases the ILSS value of composite,and the highest value is observed in the composite pre-pared with the stacking sequence L5.

Morphological structure of jute–glass fiber composite

The morphological structure of the epoxy composite ispresented in Figure 10(a). From the figure of the epoxycomposite, no stretching and pulling of polymer on thesurface of epoxy composite was observed, but there is a

sharp cut surface due to brittle nature of epoxy com-posite. The brittle nature of the epoxy composite wasstudied and conformed by many researchers.37–39

The stretching and elongation of glass fiber is pre-sented in Figure 10(b) due to the applied tensilestrength. The stretching of fiber indicates that thestrength of the polymer increased due to the incorpor-ation of glass fiber with epoxy composite, and this issupported by the result obtained in Figure 5.

The morphology of the jute fiber composites isshown in Figure 10(c). A little fiber stretching and

Figure 9. Interlaminar shear strength of jute–glass fiber epoxy composite.

Figure 10. Morphologies of tensile strength: (a) epoxy composite; (b) glass fiber composite; (c) jute fiber composite; (d) hybrid

epoxy composite.





fiber breakage is clearly viewed in more places from thesurface of the jute fiber composite. This is due to brittlenature of the composites.The same type of behavior isalso observed by Rashed et al.40

The morphology of the hybrid composite is pre-sented in Figure 10(d). The two types of behavior areobserved on the surface of hybrid composite due totensile load. One is glass fiber stretching and anotheris jute fiber breakage without any stretching. The jutefiber and matrix bonding are good, but due to brittlenature of jute fiber, the breakage is observed.

The flexural load-applied morphology of the glassfiber is shown in Figure 11(a). It is observed from thesurface of glass fiber composite that some fiber bend-ing is occurred due to flexural load. The bendingimplies that the material is semibrittle or semiductilein nature. The semibrittle nature of the glass fiber wasstudied by Kaundal et al.41 The flexural load-appliedmorphology of the jute fiber composite is shown inFigure 11(b). It is observed from the surface of jutefiber composite that there are some fiber breaking, anda sharp cut also found at some places due to flexuralload. This defines the brittle nature of the jute fibercomposite. The flexural load-applied morphologyof the hybrid composite is shown in Figure 11(c).From the figure, two types of behavior are observed:one is the bending of glass fiber and another is thebrittleness of jute fiber. Cracks are also formed due toflexural load.

Conclusion

Based on the study of the mechanical properties of dif-ferent layered stacking sequences of jute and glasshybrid epoxy composites, the following conclusionscan be drawn:

1. By incorporation of natural and traditional con-tinues fibers into the polymer, the mechanical prop-erties almost enhanced to greater extent.

2. The maximum ILSS is observed for the compositeprepared with glass fiber as extreme layers.

3. The maximum flexural is observed in L3(JGJG) afterglass fiber composites. The jute fiber gives 61%strength of the glass fibers composites.

4. The maximum tensile strength is observed in L5(GJJG) after glass fiber composites. The L5 hybridcomposites give 75% strength of the glass fiberscomposites.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from anyfunding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit

sectors.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Figure 11. Morphologies of flexural strength: (a) flexural glass fiber composites; (b) flexural jute fiber composites; (c) flexural

hybrid composites.

Gujjala et al. 9




References

1. Hamada H, Denault J, Mohanty AK, et al. Natural fiber

composites. Adv Mech Eng 2013; 2: 1–2.2. Bledzki AK and Gassan J. Composites reinforced with

cellulose based fibers. Prog Polym Sci 1999; 24(2):

221–274.3. Aji IS, Zainudin ES, Abdan K, et al. Mechanical proper-

ties and water absorption behavior of hybridized kenaf/

pineapple leaf fibre-reinforced high-density polyethylene

composite. J Compos Mater 2013; 47: 979–990.4. Zakaria S, Hamzah H, Murshidi JA, et al. Chemical

modification on Lingo cellulosic polymeric oil palm

empty fruit bunch for advanced material. Adv Polym

Tech 2001; 20: 289–295.5. Mwaikambo L and Ansell M. Chemical modification of

hemp, sisal, jute and kapok fibers by alkalisation. J Appl

Polym Sci 2002; 84: 2222–2234.6. Mitra BC, Basak RKM and Sarkar M. Studies on jute-

reinforced composites, its limitations and some solution

through chemical modifications of fibers. J Appl Polym

Sci 1998; 67: 1093–1100.7. Yang HS, Kim HJ, Lee BJ, et al. Effect of compatibiliz-

ing agent on rice husk flour reinforced polypropylene

composites. Compos Struct 2007; 77: 45–55.8. Okubo K, Fujii T and Yamamoto Y. Development of

bamboo-based polymer composites and their mechanical

properties. Composites Part A 2004; 35: 377–383.

9. Sain MM and Kokta BV. Polyolefine-wood filler com-

posite. I. Performance of M-phenylene bismaleimide-

modified wood fiber in polypropylene composites.

J Appl Polym Sci 1994; 54: 1545–1559.10. Pihtili H and Tosun N. Investigation of the wear behav-

ior of a glass fiber-reinforced composite and plain poly-

ester resin. Compos Sci Technol 2002; 62: 367–370.11. Patnaik A and Mahapatra SS. Study on mechanical and

erosion wear behavior of hybrid composites using Taguchi

experimental design. Mater Des 2009; 30: 2791–2801.12. Chauhan S, Kumar A, Patnaik A, et al. Mechanical and

wear characterization of GF reinforced vinyl ester resin

composites with different comonomers. J Reinf Plast

Comp 2009; 28: 2675–2684.

13. Schwartz MM. Composite materials handbook, New

York, USA: McGraw-Hill.14. Suresha B, Chandramohan G, Siddaramaiah P, et al.

Mechanical and three body abrasive wear behavior of

3-D glass fabric reinforced vinylester composites. Mater

Sci Eng A 2007; 443: 285–291.

15. Piggot MR. Load-bearing fiber composite. Oxford:

Pergamon Press, 1980.16. Kukureka SN, Hooke CJ, Rao M, et al. The effect of

fibre reinforcement on the friction and wear of polyamide

66 under dry rolling–sliding contact. Tribol Int 1999; 32:

107–116.

17. Kishore P. SEM observations of the effects of velocity

and load on the sliding wear characteristics of glass

fabric–epoxy composites with different fillers. Wear

2000; 237: 20–27.18. El-Tayep NS and Gadelrap RM. Friction and wear prop-

erties of E-glass fiber reinforced epoxy composites under

different sliding contact conditions. Wear 1996; 192:112–117.

19. Lackey E, James GV, Kapil I, et al. Statistical

Characterization of Pultruded Composites with NaturalFiber Reinforcements – Part A: Fabrication. Journal ofNatural Fibers 2008; 4: 73–87.

20. Swamy RP, Mohan Kumar GC, Vrushabhendrappa Y,

et al. Study of areca-reinforced phenol formaldehydecomposites. J Reinf Plast Comp 2004; 23: 1373.

21. Raveendran K, Ganesh A and Khilart KC. Influence of

mineral matter on biomass pyrolysis characteristics. Fuel1995; 74: 1812–1822.

22. Lu JZ, Wu Q, Negulescu II, et al. The influences of fiber

feature and polymer melt index on mechanical propertiesof sugarcane fiber/polymer composites. J Appl Polym Sci2006; 102: 5607–5619.

23. Mohanty AK, Misra M and Hinrichsen G. Biofibres,biodegradable polymers and biocomposites: an overview.Macromol Mater Eng 2000; 276: 1.

24. Shah AN and Lakkad SC. Mechanical properties of jute-

reinforced plastics. Fiber Sci Technol 1981; 15: 41–46.25. Rana AK and Jayachandran K. Molecular crystals and

liquid crystals science and technology. Section A: Mol

Cryst Liq Cryst 2000; 353: 35–45.26. Rahman R, Huque M, Nazrul I, et al. Improvement of

physico-mechanical properties of jute fiber reinforced

polypropylene composites by post-treatment.Composites Part A 2008; 39: 1739–1747.

27. Ahmed KS, Vijayarangan S and Rajput C. Mechanicalbehavior of isothalic polyester-based untreated woven

jute and glass fabric hybrid composites. J Reinf PlastComp 2006; 25: 1549.

28. John K and Naidu SV. Tensile properties of unsaturated

polyester-based sisal fiber–glass fiber hybrid composites.J Reinf Plast Comp 2004; 23: 1815.

29. Mishra S, Mohanty AK, Drzal LT, et al. Studies on mech-

anical performance of biofiber/glass reinforced polyesterhybrid composites.Compos Sci Technol 2003; 63: 1377–1385.

30. Pavithran C, Mukherjee PS and Brahmakumar M. Coir-

glass intermingled fibre hybrid composites. J Reinf PlastComp 1991; 10: 91–101.

31. Mohan R and Kishore. Jute glass sandwich composites.J Reinf Plast Comp 1985; 4: 186–194.

32. Kalaprasad G, Thomas S, Pavithran C, et al. Hybrideffect in the mechanical properties of short sisal/glasshybrid fiber reinforced low density polyethylene compos-

ites. J Reinf Plast Comp 1996; 15: 49–73.33. Mishra S, Misra M, Tripathy SS, et al. Potentiality of

pineapple leaf fiber as reinforcement in PALF-polyester

composite: surface modification and mechanical perform-ance. J Reinf Plast Comp 2001; 20: 321–334.

34. Agarwal BD and Broutman LJ. Analysis and performanceof fiber composites, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and

Sons Inc, 1990.35. Wambua P, Ivens J and Verpoest I. Natural fibres: can

they replace glass in fibre reinforced plastics. Compos Sci

Technol 2003; 63: 1259–1264.36. Gowda TM, Naidu ACB and Rajput C. Some mechan-

ical properties of untreated jute fabric-reinforced polyes-

ter composites. Composites Part A 1999; 30: 277–284.





37. Sultan JN, Laible RC and McGarry FJ. Scanning elec-tron micrographs of rubber modified epikote (828). ApplPolym Symp 1971; 6: 127.

38. Paul NC, Richards DH and Thompson D. An aliphaticamine cured rubber modified epoxide adhesive, proper-ties and preliminary evaluation. Polymer 1977; 18: 945.

39. Kinloch AJ, Shaw SJ and Tod DA. In rubber modified

thermoset resins. In: Riew CK and Gillham JK (eds)Toughness and brittleness of plastic. Advances in chemistry

series 208. Washington DC: American Society, 1984, p.101.

40. Rashed HMMA, Islam MA and Rizvi FB. Effects of

process parameters on tensile strength of jute fiber rein-forced thermoplastic composites. J Naval Archit Mar Eng2006; 3: 1–6.

41. Kaundal R, Patnaik A and Satapathy A. Solid particle

erosion of short glass fiber reinforced polyester compos-ite. Am J Mater Sci 2012; 2: 22–27.

Gujjala et al. 11



Journal of Composite Materials 2013 Gujjala 0021998313501924

Documents

Transcript of Journal of Composite Materials 2013 Gujjala 0021998313501924