Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
INFLUENCE OF NATURAL FIBRE TYPE IN ECO-COMPOSITES
Bordeaux, 27 March 2007
Dr. Míriam García
3rd WOOD FIBRE POLYMER COMPOSITES
INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
INTRODUCTION
RESULTS FOR BIOPOLYMER+ANNUALLY GROWN PLANTS FIBRES
RESULTS FOR POLYMER+WOOD FIBRES
CONCLUSIONS
INDEX
ECO-COMPOSITES
BIOPOLYMER
PETROLEUM DERIVED POLYMER
+WOOD
ANNUALLY GROWN PLANTS (PRODUCTS OR SUBPRODUCTS)
INTRODUCTION
kenaf
Wood fibre
0
Rice husks
INTRODUCTION
COMPETITORS
Wood Fibre Composites
Talc or mica composites
Long natural fibre composites
Glass fibre composites
NATURAL FIBRES VS GLASS FIBRES
Lower impact strength
Lower specific weight(1,25-1,50 vs 2,6 g/cc)
Price
DISADVANTAGESADVANTAGES
INTRODUCTION
Advantages of eco-composites vs wood
Dimensional stability
Durability against fungi and insects
Processability like plastics
Advantages of eco-composites vs typical composites
Biodegradability
Price
INTRODUCTION
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
KENAFRS
YOU
NG
'S M
OD
ULU
S (M
Pa)
% FIBER
Kenaf eco-composites: fibres increase stiffness of the polymer
Rice husks eco-composites: rice acts as a filler
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
KENAFRS
TEN
SILE
STR
ENG
TH (M
Pa)
% FIBER
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
KENAFRS
FLE
XUR
AL M
OD
ULU
S (M
Pa)
% FIBER
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
KENAFRS
FLE
XUR
AL S
TREN
GTH
(MPa
)
% FIBER
TENSILE
FLEXURAL
BIOPOLYMER+RICE HUSKS OR KENAF
EXTRUSION+INJECTION
BIOPOLYMER+RICE HUSKS OR KENAF
L/D=50
KENAF
L/D=3.5
RICE HUSKS
BIOPOLYMER+RICE HUSKS OR KENAF
Fibre content
(%)
Unnotched impact strength (J/m)
Notched impact strength (J/m)
Kenaf RS Kenaf RS
0 76±6 76±6 7.4±0.3 7.4±0.3
20 47±4 33±7 11.5±0.9 9.0±1.6
30 52±3 36±4 12.2±0.8 6.8±1.0
CHARPY IMPACT STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
PLA KENAF KENAF/FR 10% RS RS/FR 10%
BUR
NIN
G T
IME
(s)
BIOPOLYMER+RICE HUSKS OR KENAF
FIRE TESTS
10% FR
DURABILITY
Eco-composites without pigment
500h QUV
Chalking, bleaching and cracking
Eco-composites with 4% pigment
1500h QUV
BIOPOLYMER+RICE HUSKS OR KENAF
Retaining of flexural properties: stiffness at low deformation levels is maintained
2.4 ±0.287.8 ±11.35800±2500 h
1.0 ±0.229.6 ±14.64900 ±5401500 h
1.0 ±0.132.0 ±7.55200±2501000 h
1.5 ±0.269.1 ±6.65900±250500 h
ε (%)σ (MPa)E (MPa)
KENAF
3.3 ±0.377.9 ±8.84100±1500 h
1.0 ±0.514.8 ±9.04000±2001500 h
1.0 ±0.529.5 ±8.14200±5501000 h
1.6 ±0.254.1 ±11.94600±300500 h
ε (%)σ (MPa)E (MPa)
RS
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0 500 1000 1500 2000
MODULUSSTRENGTH
PRO
PER
TY R
ETE
NTI
ON
(%)
AGEING TIME (h)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 500 1000 1500 2000
MODULUSSTRENGTH
PRO
PER
TY R
ETE
NTI
ON
(%)
AGEING TIME (h)
DURABILITY
CONCLUSIONS
Kenaf eco-composites give rise to better mechanical performance than rice husk eco-composites
In non load-bearing applications, the low price of ricehusks can compensate the lack of mechanical improvement
BIOPOLYMER+RICE HUSKS OR KENAF
WPC
HDPE+WOOD
VARIABLES
WOOD FIBRES
Fibre A L=300-500 µm
Fibre B L=100 µmINJECTION PRESSURE
FIBRE CONTENT
DIRECT INJECTION
PROCESSING
TENSILE
FLEXURAL500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 10 20 30 40 50
P=1712 barP=2575 barP=3038 bar
TEN
SILE
MO
DU
LUS
(MP
a)
% FIBRE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
0 10 20 30 40 50
P=1712 barP=2575 barP=3038 bar
�TE
NSI
LE S
TRE
NG
TH (M
Pa)
% FIBRE
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 10 20 30 40 50
P=1712 barP=2575 barP=3038 bar
FLE
XUR
AL M
OD
ULU
S (M
Pa)
% FIBRE
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
0 10 20 30 40 50
P=1712 barP=2575 barP=3038 bar
FLEX
UR
AL
STR
EN
GTH
MP
a)
% FIBRE
Increases in the stiffness and the strength with fibre content
Injection pressure has no effect
FIBRE AHDPE+WOOD
HDPE+WOOD
B fibre: results independent of fibre content
Results for 30%A fibre ≅ 20%B fibre
67% fibre in volumePROPERTY MICA
25%TALC 30%
TALC 40%
GLASS FIBRE 30%
WOOD FIBRE 20%
WOOD FIBRE 40%
FIBRE A 30%
FIBRE B 20%
Tensile modulus (MPa)
3100 3510 1700 2700 1635 1700
Tensile strength (MPa)
34.5 32.4 20.7 23.4 17 18 19.4 26.6
Flexural modulus (MPa)
2000 2137 2410 3020 1400 2400 2270 2309
Flexural strength (Mpa)
44.8 46.9 37 26.2 31 35 27.9 33.7
HDPE+WOOD
CONCLUSIONS
Stiffness of the injected eco-composites is comparable to commercially available filler filled composites, while strength is comparable to both filler and glass fibre filled commercial composites but with much innocuous environmental performance.
NATURAL FIBRE REINFORCED ECO-COMPOSITES
CONCLUSIONS
Annually grown plantsAspect ratio of the fibres plays a key role: the higher the aspect ratio the higher the mechanical properties
Price of the materials can be easily reduced with the addition of agricultural subproducts for i.e. decorative appliances
WPCcomposites can be easily obtained by direct injection moulding up to almost70% in volume
Mechanical performance is fibre content dependant but not injection parameters dependant
Mechanical properties comparable to talc filled composites
![A Review on Natural Fibre Reinforced Polymer Composites · natural fibre reinforced polymer composites increase with increasing fibre loading. Khoathane et al. [1] found that the](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/5e21837fc2d50e18910e61ca/a-review-on-natural-fibre-reinforced-polymer-composites-natural-fibre-reinforced.jpg)
