Investigation into mechanical & tribological performance of kenaf fibre particle reinforced composite

Figures & data

Figure 1. Kenaf fibre particles.

Table 1. Particle, resin and composite characteristics

Property	Length/Density
Particle Length	~ 0.5 mm
Particle Density	1450 kg/m^3
Resin Cured Density	1100 kg/m^3
Composite Density
5 %wt. Particle	1113 kg/m^3
10%wt. Particle	1127 kg/m^3
15%wt. Particle	1141 kg/m^3
20%wt. Particle	1156 kg/m^3

Figure 2. Schematic illustration of a Pin-On-Disk (POD) tribo-machine.

Figure 3. Average tensile strength for NE and KPafRE composite at different fibre particle weight percentages.

Figure 4. Average modulus of elasticity for NE and KPafRE composite at different fibre particle weight percentages.

Figure 5. Average flexural strength for NE and KPafRE composite at different fibre particle weight percentages.

Figure 6. Average flexural modulus for NE and KPafRE composite at different fibre particle weight fractions.

Figure 7. Average impact strength for NE and KPafRE composite at different fibre particle weight percentages.

Figure 8. Average compression strength for NE and KPafRE composite at different fibre particle weight percentages.

Figure 9. Average hardness for NE and KPafRE composite at different fibre particle weight percentages.

Figure 10. Average water absorption for NE and KPafRE composite at different fibre particle weight percentages.

Figure 11. Average Ws for NE and KPafRE composite during steady state transitions (5.0 km) at different particle weight fractions.

Figure 12. Average friction coefficient for NE and KPafRE composite during steady state transitions (3.36 km) at different particle weight fractions.

Figure 13. SEM images of KPafRE composites after tensile test.

(Remarks: Cr = Crack, MiDI = Minor Delamination, MaDl = Major Delamination, Vo = Voids, Re = Resinous Region, Fb = Fibrous Region)

Figure 14. SEM images of KPafRE composites after flexural test.

(Remarks: Cr = Crack, MiDI = Minor Delamination, MaDl = Major Delamination, Deb = Debonding, Re = Resinous Region, Fb = Fibrous Region)

Figure 15. SEM images of KPafRE composites after impact test.

(Remarks: Cr = Crack, MiDI = Minor Delamination, MaDl = Major Delamination, De = Debonding, Re = Resinous Region, Fb = Fibrous Region)

Figure 16. Optical photo micrographs of NE and KPafRE composite at 30 N applied loads subjected to 6.72 km sliding distances and 2.83 m/s counterface sliding velocity.

(Remarks: BFt = Back Film Transfer, Ws = Wear Scar, Pd = Plastic Deformation, Wd = Wear Debris, Fr = Fracture, Dl = Delamination, Cr = Crack, Ld = Large Debris, Df = Detached Fibre, Db = Debris, De = Debonding, Lf = Loose Fibre)

Figure 17. ANOVA results for tensile test.

Table 2. ANOVA results for mechanical tests

No.	Type of Test	p-value
1	Tensile	3.40271E-11
2	Flexural	5.57E-12
3	Impact	3.68E-20
4	Compression	1.89E-12
5	Hardness	0.003434
6	Water Absorption	0.000230974

Table 3. Summary of 2-sample t-test results for mechanical tests

	Tensile	Flexural	Impact	Compression	Hardness	Water Absorption
NE VS 5%	8.17302E-05	0.000157	4.2426E-08	5.11E-06	0.005875	0.398829502
NE VS 10%	9.91831E-07	0.000186	3.2843E-10	1.09E-06	0.005465	0.032190765
NE VS 15%	3.80315E-07	7.6E-08	1.7465E-10	6.38E-07	0.109316	0.005942332
NE VS 20%	1.84153E-08	0.015957	2.6918E-11	2.19E-07	0.259795	0.000667056
5% VS 10%	0.018831142	4.71E-05	2.5559E-06	0.023896	0.703358	0.187472471
5% VS 15%	0.000331537	7.73E-08	2.0199E-07	0.000187	0.051987	0.037602197
5% VS 20%	0.00090878	0.005684	6.8277E-08	0.000333	0.051903	0.003669432
10% VS 15%	0.005855659	2.31E-05	0.00042966	0.001895	0.044919	0.209135516
10% VS 20%	0.068272958	0.00237	0.00017563	0.014867	0.04597	0.008452303
15% VS 20%	0.036358988	5.14E-07	0.72919609	0.038844	0.656141	0.063943576

Figure 18. 2-sample t-test results for NE vs. 5%wt. KPafRE.

Table 4. Tensile, flexural and compressive properties of various natural and synthetic fibre based polymeric composites

No.	Reinforcement/Polymer	Tensile Strength (MPa)	Young’s Modulus (GPa)	Compressive Strength (MPa)	Flexural Strength (MPa)	Flexural Modulus (GPa)	Reference
1	NE Kenaf/Epoxy (Treated 6% NaOH, 15%wt.)	6.17 28.99	0.30 2.29	45.14 91.88	46.14 83.05	0.78 3.27	Current
2	Short Kenaf /PP (20%wt., Treated 6% NaOH)	22.91	1.80	NA	43.44	1.82	(Niaz Akhtar et al., 2016)
3	Kenaf Mat/PP (20%wt., treated 6%NaOH) Glass Mat/PP (20%wt.)	30 57	1.5 3.3	NA NA	33 55	NA NA	(Asumani, Reid, & Paskaramoorthy, 2012)
4	Coir/Epoxy (22%vol., Treated 5% NaOH)	23.8	2.96	NA	40.4	3.75	(Chen, Yu, Zhong, & Wu, 2016)
5	Bamboo/Epoxy (40%vol.) Flax/Epoxy (40%vol.)	254.7 222.9	19.5 23.9	149.5 136.9	NA NA	NA NA	(Van Vuure, Baets, Wouters, & Hendrickx, 2015)
6	Sugarcane/Polyester (5mm, 3.45–4.18%wt.)	24.5	2.36	81	NA	NA	(El-Tayeb, 2009)
7	Jowar/Polyester (18%vol.) Sisal/Polyester (18%vol.) Bamboo/Polyester (18%vol.)	62 30 65	1.7 1.2 1.6	NA NA NA	75 68 77	4.5 1.5 2	(Prasad & Rao, 2011)
8	Long Napier Grass/Polyester (Treated 10% NaOH, 25%vol.) Polyester	23.6 10.1	1.1 NA	NA NA	53.1 29.3	1.43 NA	(Hameem et al., 2016)
9	Short Jute/Epoxy (5 mm, 30%wt.)	32.9	0.054	NA	88.31	7.62	(Bisaria, Gupta, Shandilya, & Srivastava, 2015)
10	Sisal-Glass/Epoxy Jute-Glass Epoxy	68.55 62.99	NA	NA	NA	NA	(Ramesh, Palanikumar, & Reddy, 2013)

Table 5. Impact energy and hardness properties of various natural and synthetic fibre-based polymeric composites

No.	Reinforcement/Polymer	Impact Energy	Hardness (Shore D)	Reference
1	NE Kenaf/Epoxy (Treated 6% NaOH, 15%wt.)	0.1 J 0.8 J	71.1 77.4	Current
2	Luffa/Epoxy (Treated 2% NaOH, 30%wt. fraction)	5 kJ/m^2 (Strength)	NA	(Anbukarasi & Kalaiselvam, 2015)
3	Date Palm/Epoxy (Treated 6% NaOH, 35%vol.) Graphite/Epoxy (3%wt.)	NA NA	84.3 83.5	(Shalwan & Yousif, 2014)
4	Short Jute/Epoxy (20 mm)	0.1585 J	NA	(Bisaria, Gupta, Shandilya, & Srivastava, 2015)
5	Coconut/Epoxy (Treated NaOH, 10%wt.)	NA	83	(Prabhu & Amin, 2015)

Table 6. Water absorption of various natural fibre-based polymeric composites

No.	Reinforcement/Polymer	Water Absorption, %	Reference
1	NE Kenaf/Epoxy (15%wt., Treated 6% NaOH)	1.55	Current
		2.93
2	Luffa/Epoxy (Treated 2% NaOH, 30%wt. fraction)	1	(Anbukarasi & Kalaiselvam, 2015)
3	Short Napier Grass/Polyester (Treated 10% NaOH, short)	4	(Haameem J.A. et al., 2016)

Table 7. Tribological properties of various natural and synthetic fibre-based polymeric composites

No.	Condition	Reinforcement/Polymer	Ws (mm3/N.m)	Friction (µ)	Reference
1	30 N, 2.83 m/s, 5.04 km	NE Kenaf/Epoxy (Treated 6% NaOH, 15%wt.)	0.7$\times$10^−4 4.0 × 10^−5	2.30 1.25	Current
2	30 N, 2.8 m/s, 3.36 km	Kenaf/Epoxy (48%vol., N-O)	1.0$\times$10^−5	0.55	(Chin & Yousif, 2009)
3	30 N, 2.83 m/s, 3.4 km	Bamboo/Epoxy (4 %wt., AP-O)	5.3$\times$10^−5	0.70	(Nirmal, Hashim, & Low, 2012)
4	30 N, 2.83 m/s, 5.04 km	Date Palm/Epoxy (Treated 6% NaOH, 35%vol.) Graphite/Epoxy (3%wt.)	2.4$\times$10^−5 0.9$\times$10^−5	0.55 0.55	(Shalwan & Yousif, 2014)
5	40 N, 5.44 m/s, 3.0 km	Glass fibre/Epoxy (50%vol.)	15$\times$10^−6	NA	(Basavarajappa & Ellangovan, 2012)
6	30N, 2.8 m/s, 5 km)	Oil Palm/Polyester (45–48%vol.) Polyester	40 × 10–4 120 × 10–4	0.7 (2.5 km) 0.8 (3.9 km)	(Yousif & El-Tayeb, 2007)
7	30N, 2.8 m/s, 5 km	Betelnut/Polyester	3.0 × 10–5	0.55	(Yousif et al., 2010)

Niaz Akhtar, M. , Bakar Sulong, A. , Fadzly Radzi, M. K. , Ismail, N. F. , Raza, M. R. , & Muhamad, N ., & Azhar, M. (2016). Influence of alkaline treatment and fiber loading on the physical and mechanical properties of kenaf / polypropylene composites for variety of applications. Progress in Natural Science: Materials International, 26, 657–664. doi:10.1016/j.pnsc.2016.12.004

 Google Scholar

Asumani, O. M. L., Reid, R. G., & Paskaramoorthy, R . (2012). The effects of alkali – silane treatment on the tensile and flexural properties of short fibre non-woven kenaf reinforced polypropylene composites. Composites: Part A, 43, 1431–1440. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2012.04.007

 Google Scholar

Chen, H. , Yu, Y. , Zhong, T. , & Wu, Y. (2016). Effect of alkali treatment on microstructure and mechanical properties of coir fibres, coir fibre reinforced-polymer composites and reinforced-cementitious composites. Construction and Building Materials, 112, 168–182. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.182

 Google Scholar

Van Vuure, A. W. , Baets, J. , & Wouters, K ., & Hendrickx, K. (2015). Compressive properties of natural fibre composites. Materials Letters, 149, 138–140. doi:10.1016/j.matlet.2015.01.158

 Google Scholar

El-Tayeb, N. S. M . (2009). Development and characterisation of low-cost polymeric composite materials. Materials and Design , 30 (4), 1151–1160. doi:10.5539/jmsr.v3n2p23

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Prasad, A. V. R. , & Rao, K. M . (2011). Mechanical properties of natural fibre reinforced polyester composites: Jowar, sisal and bamboo. Materials and Design, 32, 4658–4663. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2011.03.015

 Google Scholar

Hameem, M. J . A., Abdul Majid, M. S., Afendi, M., MArzuki, H. F. A., Ahmad Hilmi, E., Fahmi, I., & Gibson, A. G. (2016). Effect of water absorption on napier grass fibre/polyester composites. Composite Structures, 144, 138–146. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2011.03.015

 Google Scholar

Bisaria, H. , Gupta, M. K. , Shandilya, P. , & Srivastava, R. K. (2015). Effect of Fibre Length on Mechanical Properties of Randomly Oriented Short Jute Fibre Reinforced Epoxy Composite. Materials Today: Proceedings , 2, 1193–1199. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2015.07.031

 Google Scholar

Ramesh, M., Palanikumar, K., & Reddy, K. H. (2013). Comparative evaluation on properties of hybrid glass fiber-sisal/jute reinforced epoxy composites. Procedia Engineering , 51, 745–750. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2013.01.106

 Google Scholar

Anbukarasi, K. , & Kalaiselvam, S. (2015). Study of effect of fibre volumeand dimension on mechanical, thermal, and water absorption behaviour of luffa reinforced epoxy composites. Materials & Design (1980-2015) , 66, 321–330. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2014.10.078

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shalwan, A. , & Yousif, B. F. (2014). Influence of date palm fibre and graphite filler on mechanical and wear characteristics of epoxy composites. Materials & Design , 59, 264–273. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2014.02.066

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Prabhu, R. , & Amin, A. K. (2015). Dhyanchandra, “Development and charaterization of low cost polymer composites from coconut coir,”. American Journal Materials Sciences , 5, 62–68.

 Google Scholar

Haameem J.A., M. J. A. , Abdul Majid, M. S. , Afendi, M. , Marzuki, H. F. A. , Hilmi, E. A. , Fahmi, I. , Gibson, A. G. ,(2016). Effects of water absorption on Napier grass fibre/polyester composites. Composite Structures , 144, 138–146. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.02.067

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chin, C. W. , & Yousif, B. F. (2009). Potential of kenaf fibres as reinforcement for tribological applications. Wear , 267, 1550–1557. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2009.06.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nirmal, U. , Hashim, J. , & Low, K. O. (2012). Adhesive wear and frictional performance of bamboo fibres reinforced epoxy composite. Tribology International , 47, 122–133. doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2011.10.012

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Basavarajappa, S. , & Ellangovan, S. (2012). Dry sliding wear characteristics of glass – Epoxy composite filled with silicon carbide and graphite particles. Wear , 296, 491–496. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2012.08.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yousif, B. F. , & El-Tayeb, N. S. M. (2007). The Effect of oil palm fibres as reinforcement on tribological performance of polyester composite. Surface Reviews Letters , 14(6), 1095–1102. doi:10.1142/S0218625X07010561

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yousif, B. F. , Lau, S. T. W. , & Mcwilliam, S. (2010). Polyester composite based on betelnut fibre for tribological applications. Tribology Lubrication Technological , 43, 503–511.

 Google Scholar