651
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Effects of Physical and Mechanical Properties of Coir Fiber and Reinforced Epoxy Composites Treated with Acetic Anhydride and Alkali

ORCID Icon, , & ORCID Icon

Figures & data

Table 1. Details of literature review with kind of fiber and treatment method.

Figure 1. Getting coir fiber (a) and flow chart of composite production (b).

Figure 1. Getting coir fiber (a) and flow chart of composite production (b).

Figure 2. (a) The TGA curves of UCF (black)、AACF (red) and ACF (blue) under optimal conditions. (b) the DTG curves of UCF (black)、AACF (red) and ACF (blue) under optimal conditions.

Figure 2. (a) The TGA curves of UCF (black)、AACF (red) and ACF (blue) under optimal conditions. (b) the DTG curves of UCF (black)、AACF (red) and ACF (blue) under optimal conditions.

Figure 3. FTIR spectra of UCF (black)、AACF (red) and ACF (blue) under optimal conditions.

Figure 3. FTIR spectra of UCF (black)、AACF (red) and ACF (blue) under optimal conditions.

Table 2. Peak value of change in FTIR spectrum.

Figure 4. Diameter (a), tensile strength (b), and morphology (c) of different types of coir fibers.

Figure 4. Diameter (a), tensile strength (b), and morphology (c) of different types of coir fibers.

Figure 5. Tukey test for coir fiber tensile strength.

Figure 5. Tukey test for coir fiber tensile strength.

Table 3. ANOVA for coir fiber tensile strength.

Figure 6. Microscopic SEM images of the surface of UCF (a), a part of the surface of UCF (b), surface of AACF (c), a part of the surface of AACF (d), surface of ACF (e), and a part of the surface of ACF (f).

Figure 6. Microscopic SEM images of the surface of UCF (a), a part of the surface of UCF (b), surface of AACF (c), a part of the surface of AACF (d), surface of ACF (e), and a part of the surface of ACF (f).

Figure 7. The tensile stress–strain curves of PEB (a), ULC (b), USC (c), AALC (d), AASC (e), ALC (f), and ASC (g).

Figure 7. The tensile stress–strain curves of PEB (a), ULC (b), USC (c), AALC (d), AASC (e), ALC (f), and ASC (g).

Figure 8. Tensile strength of different specimens (a), Tukey test for different specimens (b).

Figure 8. Tensile strength of different specimens (a), Tukey test for different specimens (b).

Table 4. ANOVA for composite tensile strength.

Figure 9. The flexural stress–strain curves of PEB (a), ULC (b), USC (c), AALC (d), AASC (e), ALC (f), and ASC (g).

Figure 9. The flexural stress–strain curves of PEB (a), ULC (b), USC (c), AALC (d), AASC (e), ALC (f), and ASC (g).

Figure 10. Flexural strength of different specimens (a), Tukey test for different specimens (b).

Figure 10. Flexural strength of different specimens (a), Tukey test for different specimens (b).

Table 5. ANOVA for composite flexural strength.

Figure 11. Microscopic SEM images of ULC fracture surface (a), USC fracture surface (b), AALC fracture surface (c), AASC fracture surface (d), ALC fracture surface (e), and ASC fracture surface (f).

Figure 11. Microscopic SEM images of ULC fracture surface (a), USC fracture surface (b), AALC fracture surface (c), AASC fracture surface (d), ALC fracture surface (e), and ASC fracture surface (f).

Figure 12. Percentage increase in weight of the composites at room temperature (a), Tukey test for different specimens (b).

Figure 12. Percentage increase in weight of the composites at room temperature (a), Tukey test for different specimens (b).

Table 6. ANOVA for composite hygroscopicity.