Effect of Carbon and Glass Fillers on Tensile and Impact Strength, Water Absorption, and Degradation Properties of Sisal/Polyester Composites

Figures & data

Table 1. Effect of fillers on the mechanical and water absorption properties of hybrid composites.

Composite (Fiber/matrix)	Filler material	Effect of filler hybridization on mechanical and water absorption properties	References
Phoenix pusilla/ carbon/epoxy	Fish bones	The fillers in hybrid polymer composites permit the enhancement of the tensile strength, flexural strength, and hardness by 22.5, 200, 100 and 15.2%, respectively.	Abhishek et al. (2018)
Banyan aerial root fibers/epoxy	Graphene powder	The fillers show maximum increment of 45.4% in tensile and 5% in flexural strength were attained for a 4 wt.% of graphene powder filled composite	Ganapathy et al. (2021)
Cordia dichotoma fiber/polyester	Granite powder	The fillers show maximum increment of 28% in tensile strength, 146% in impact strength and 33% in flexural strength were attained for a 15 wt.% of granite filler content. Moreover, the water absorption property of the composite was lowered from 20 to 5 wt % for 15 wt.% of granite filler content.	Reddy et al. (2020)
Prosopis juliflora fiber/epoxy	CaCO3, TiO2 and Al2O3	The fillers show maximum increment of 8% in tensile strength, 10% in flexural strength, and 36% in impact strength is observed for 20 wt% prosopis juliflora fiber Al2O3 filled composite.	Reddy et al. (2019)
Jute/epoxy	Carbon nano tube	The tensile and impact strengths are significantly improved for in a jute reinforced hybrid polymer composite filled with 6% volume of carbon nano tube fillers. However, the flexural strength increased up to the addition of 8% volume of nano tube fillers.	Saiteja, Jayakumar, and Bharathiraja (2019)
Jute/epoxy	ZnO and TiO2	The fillers show maximum increment of 30.79% in tensile strength and 34.03% in compressive strength for composite filled with 4 wt% of TiO2.	Prasob and Sasikumar (2018)
Sisal/polyester	Carbon and glass	The fillers show maximum value with increment of 14.7% in tensile and 57.3% in impact strength for the 5 wt.% carbon filled 30/70 composite. Moreover, a lowest degradation of 2% in tensile and impact strengths was exhibited for the 7.5 wt.% carbon filled 20/80 composites.	This study

Figure 1. Sisal fiber forms: (a) Treated sisal fibers, (b) sisal plies.

Table 2. The nomenclature and content of the sisal fibers, glass fillers, carbon fillers, and polyester resin in the composite.

Laminate	Designation	Composition
T1	20/80 composite	20 wt.% sisal+80 wt.% polyester
T2	30/70 composite	30 wt.% sisal+70 wt.% polyester
T3	2.5 G 20/80 composite	Glass filler (2.5 wt.% of the 20/80 composite) + 20/80 composite
T4	5 G 20/80 composite	Glass filler (5 wt.% of the 20/80 composite) + 20/80 composite
T5	7.5 G 20/80 composite	Glass filler (7.5 wt.% of the 20/80 composite) + 20/80 composite
T6	10 G 20/80 composite	Glass filler (10 wt.% of the 20/80 composite) + 20/80 composite
T7	2.5 G 30/70 composite	Glass filler (2.5 wt.% of the 30/70 composite) + 30/70 composite
T8	5 G 30/70 composite	Glass filler (5 wt.% of the 30/70 composite) + 30/70 composite
T9	7.5 G 30/70 composite	Glass filler (7.5 wt.% of the 30/70 composite) + 30/70 composite
T10	10 G 30/70 composite	Glass filler (10 wt.% of the 30/70 composite) + 30/70 composite
T11	2.5 C 20/80 composite	Carbon filler (2.5 wt.% of the 20/80 composite) + 20/80 composite
T12	5 C 20/80 composite	Carbon filler (5 wt.% of the 20/80 composite) + 20/80 composite
T13	7.5 C 20/80 composite	Carbon filler (7.5 wt.% of the 20/80 composite) + 20/80 composite
T14	10 C 20/80 composite	Carbon filler (10 wt.% of the 20/80 composite) + 20/80 composite
T15	2.5 C 30/70 composite	Carbon filler (2.5 wt.% of the 30/70 composite) + 30/70 composite
T16	5 C 30/70 composite	Carbon filler (5 wt.% of the 30/70 composite) + 30/70 composite
T17	7.5 C 30/70 composite	Carbon filler (7.5 wt.% of the 30/70 composite) + 30/70 composite
T18	10 C 30/70 composite	Carbon filler (10 wt.% of the 30/70 composite) + 30/70 composite

Figure 2. Effect of glass fillers on the water absorption rate: (a) 20/80 composites and (b) 30/70 composites.

Figure 3. Effect of carbon fillers on the water absorption rate: (a) 20/80 composites and (b) 30/70 composites.

Table 3. Percentage of water absorption at saturation of the composites.

Laminates	T1	T2	T3	T4	T5	T6	T7	T8	T9	T10	T11	T12	T13	T14	T15	T16	T17	T18
Average (%)	6.5	6.9	5.7	4.8	3.9	3.4	5.9	5.1	4.3	3.9	5.0	4.2	3.3	2.9	5.2	4.3	3.9	3.2
STDEV (±)	0.15	0.24	0.05	0.09	0.10	0.06	0.17	0.11	0.04	0.15	0.10	0.15	0.19	0.13	0.15	0.01	0.15	0.12

Figure 4. Effect of glass fillers on tensile strength: (a) 20/80 composites and (b) 30/70 composites.

Figure 5. Effect of carbon fillers on tensile strength: (a) 20/80 composites and (b) 30/70 composites.

Figure 6. Effect of glass fillers on impact strength: (a) 20/80 composites and (b) 30/70 composites.

Figure 7. Effect of carbon fillers on impact strength: (a) 20/80 composites and (b) 30/70 composites. .

Figure 8. Effect of glass and carbon fillers on degradation: (a) tensile strength of 20/80 composites, (b) tensile strength of 30/70 composites, (c) impact strength of 20/80 composites, and (d) impact strength of 30/70 composites.

Abhishek, S., M. R. Sanjay, R. George, S. Siengchin, J. Parameswaranpillai, and C. I. Pruncu. 2018. Development of new hybrid Phoenix pusilla/carbon/fish bone filler reinforced polymer composites. Journal of the Chinese Advanced Materials Society 6 (4):553–14. doi:10.1080/22243682.2018.1522599.

 Google Scholar

Ganapathy, T., R. Sathiskumar, M. R. Sanjay, P. Senthamaraikannan, S. S. Saravanakumar, J. Parameswaranpillai, and S. Siengchin. 2021. Effect of graphene powder on banyan aerial root fibers reinforced epoxy composites. Journal of Natural Fibers 18 (7):1029–1036.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reddy, B. M., R. M. Reddy, B. C. M. Reddy, P. V. Reddy, H. R. Rao, and Y. V. M. Reddy. 2020. The effect of granite powder on mechanical, structural and water absorption characteristics of alkali treated cordia dichotoma fiber reinforced polyester composite. Polymer Testing 91:1–14. doi:10.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.106782.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reddy, P. V., P. R. Prasad, D. M. Krishnudu, and P. Hussain. 2019. Influence of fillers on mechanical properties of Prosopis juliflora fiber reinforced hybrid composites. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx: xxx-xxx. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2019.07.618.

 Google Scholar

Saiteja, J., V. Jayakumar, and G. Bharathiraja. 2019. Evaluation of mechanical properties of jute fiber/carbon nano tube filler reinforced hybrid polymer composite. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx: xxx-xxx. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2019.10.110.

 Google Scholar

Prasob, P. A., and M. Sasikumar. 2018. Static and dynamic behavior of jute/epoxy composites with ZnO and TiO2 fillers at different temperature conditions. Polymer Testing 69:52–62. doi:10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.04.040.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar