Evaluation of jute/glass hybrid composite sandwich: Water resistance, impact properties and life cycle assessment
Source abstract
Abstract
The mechanical properties and the life cycle assessment (LCA) of jute woven fabric composites and their hybrids are investigated. Jute woven fabric composites were sandwiched with glass woven composites with the epoxy matrix. The sandwiched composites were prepared using the resin infusion under flexible tooling method. The water absorption test was performed on jute woven composites and composite sandwiches. It shows that thin layers of glass woven composites in the composites sandwich decelerate water penetration to jute woven composites, which are the core materials. The water absorption process applied to jute woven composites and their sandwich was modeled using Fick’s second law. The glass woven composites at the outer surface of the sandwich can act as strong skins. The bending and impact (drop weight) properties of jute–glass woven composites are higher than those of jute woven composites. A commercial LCA software product was employed to evaluate the environmental impacts of manufacturing the jute woven composites and their hybrids. The manufacturing of jute–glass woven composites had more negative environmental impacts (global warming, ozone depletion, etc.) than that of jute fabric composites, because glass fibres are less environmental friendly than natural fibres.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites · Textile materials and evaluations · Cellular and Composite Structures
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Singapore Institute of Manufacturing Technology, Singapore
References (21)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2010.06.00110.1016/j.compositesa.2010.06.001 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2010.05.02010.1016/j.compositesa.2010.05.020 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2011.01.01710.1016/j.compositesa.2011.01.017 ↗
4. 10.1002/(SICI)1439-2054(20000301)276:1<1::AID-MAME1>3.0.CO;2-W10.1002/(SICI)1439-2054(20000301)276:1<1::AID-MAME1>3.0.CO;2-W ↗
5. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.10.02210.1016/j.jclepro.2009.10.022 ↗
6. 10.1002/pc.1027210.1002/pc.10272 ↗
7. 10.1002/pc.1038310.1002/pc.10383 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2011.11.06310.1016/j.compositesb.2011.11.063 ↗
9. Summercales J · J Mater: Des Appl · 2005 · 219 · 45
10. 10.1166/jbmb.2007.01910.1166/jbmb.2007.019 ↗
11. Sahoo S, Nakai A and Hamada H. A comparative study on thermosetting biocomposites. In: Proceeding of 16th international conference on composite materials ICCM , Kyoto, Japan, 8–13 July 2007.
12. 10.1016/j.matdes.2010.07.03310.1016/j.matdes.2010.07.033 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2004.04.00410.1016/j.compositesa.2004.04.004 ↗
14. 10.1016/S0266-3538(02)00057-X10.1016/S0266-3538(02)00057-X ↗
15. 10.1016/S1359-835X(01)00053-710.1016/S1359-835X(01)00053-7 ↗
16. van Dam JEG and Bos HL. Consultation on natural fibres: the environmental impact of hard fibres and jute in non-textile industrial applications. ESC-Fibre Consultation no. 04/44, 15–16 December 2004.
17. International Finance Corporation – World Bank Group. Environmental, health, and safety guidelines for textile manufacturing, www1.ifc.org (2007, accessed 30 April 2007).
18. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2009.05.02010.1016/j.compositesa.2009.05.020 ↗
19. 10.1080/1544047090334578410.1080/15440470903345784 ↗
20. 10.1166/jbmb.2009.102910.1166/jbmb.2009.1029 ↗
21. 10.1166/jbmb.2011.111610.1166/jbmb.2011.1116 ↗